Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 241 Records
-
1985 (4) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Total Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... of the consideration for the land on which the house property is constructed comes from the wife and the wife as owner of the house property realises the rents and profits thereof and repays the money advanced by the husband out of her income, the conclusion that the husband advanced the money as and by way of loan to the wife is a possible and reasonable conclusion. The quantum and the quality of the evidence adduced or materials before the Tribunal are not at issue. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Tribunal had evidence to hold that the sum of Rs. 1,40,000 advanced by the assessee to his wife was by way of loan. In the premises, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to the first question in the affirmative, the second question does not call for any answer. We, therefore, decline to answer the second question. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (4) TMI 20 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... n the hands of Shri Sohan Singh. In other words, the reassessments presently made will have to be confirmed. Consequently, the assessments made on Preetpal Singh and Company will have to be vacated and the taxes paid thereon, if any, will have to be refunded or adjusted in accordance with law. In this eventuality, the grant of registration to Preetpal Singh does not have any meaning whatsoever. In these circumstances, we are unable to agree with the contention that the mere fact that the Income-tax Officer assessing Preetpal Singh and Company granted registration to that firm or assessed it on the income returned by it cannot stand in the way of reassessments of Shri Sohan Singh on what has been found to be in truth and reality his income. The second question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Department. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee, who has failed, will pay the costs of the Department. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1985 (4) TMI 19 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... ed the law laid down in Emerald and Co. s (1959 36 ITR 257 (SC), so as to warrant rectification of those assessment orders in exercise of the powers under section 154 of the Act. There is justification for the observations made by the Appellate Tribunal that the successor-Income-tax Officer merely sought to review or revise the order passed by the predecessor-Income-tax Officer which is not covered by section 154 of the Act. In our opinion, no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated April 27, 1978. The Appellate Tribunal was right in rejecting the Applications under section 256(1) of the Act. We, therefore, decline to direct the appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax in para 9 of the application under section 256(2) of the Act. The applications under section 256(2) of the Act are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Return ... ... ... ... ..... gly, it would not be an assessment within the period prescribed under section 153(1)(c) of the Act. We are unable to uphold this view taken by the Tribunal. The original assessment may be an irregular or erroneous assessment but the assessment none the less was completed within the normal period of limitation. Therefore, at the time of making fresh assessment, the bar of limitation is raised in view of the provisions of section 153(3)(ii) of the Act. The direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was necessary for the disposal of the appeal pending before him. The defect complained of by the Tribunal was not a defect affecting tile jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the assessment. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer this question in the reference in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (4) TMI 17 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... xtended by the Certificate Officer. In any case, it is not possible to hold that merely because the balance amount was deposited by respondent No. 6 on the basis of the extension granted by the Certificate Officer, the auction sale itself shall be deemed to be a nullity. From the records it would appear that the petitioner filed belated appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed as time-barred, and, thereafter, has virtually produced no material in support of his contention that the auction sale, which is under challenge, had been held against any mandatory provision of law, before the Commissioner or before the Member, Board of Revenue, who could have examined the grievance. In such a situation, it is very difficult for this court to hold any infirmity in respect of the auction sale which has been challenged. In the result, this writ application is dismissed, , but, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. S. S. SANDHAWALIA C. J.-I agree.
-
1985 (4) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... our attention to V. D. Dhanwatey v. CIT 1968 68 ITR 365 (SC), Sudhakar Manibhai and Kulinsingh Manibhai v. CWT 1978 111 ITR 384 (Guj), Juggilal KamLapat Bankers v. WTO 1979 116 ITR 646 (All), CIT v. Coochbehar Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1979 120 ITR 536 (Cal) (sic) and CIT v. Satyanarayan Sikaria 1983 140 ITR 624 (Gauhati), in support of the contention that from the findings recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, a question of law does arise. We have carefully considered the aforesaid decisions relied on by Mr. Daga and have no hesitation to say that they are of no assistance in the facts and circumstances of the cases at hand. For the aforesaid reasons, we decline to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law suggested by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax in his applications under section 27(3) of the Act. The reference applications are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... ose of investment in the firm. It proceeds on the basis that in computing the income chargeable on the profits and gains of business or profession, which the share income would come under, interest paid could be deducted from the share. There must be some share income in order to justify the assessee s claim for deduction under section 67(3). When there is none, it is not possible to accept the claim for deduction under that provision. We are of the view that the said decision correctly sets down the object and the principle behind section 67(3) that in the absence of any share income from the partnership, a partner cannot claim deduction for the interest paid on the share capital borrowed for investment in the partnership as against his income under other heads on the basis of section 67(3). In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion in this case. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with Costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1985 (4) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... the case, only 50 of Rs. 1,17,503 and Rs. 9,103 can be assessed as the income of the assessee from the export firms for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, respectively ? When the tax cases were posted at the first instance before a Division Bench (Ramanujam J. and (late) Fakkir Mohammed J.), the Bench answered question No. 1 against the Revenue, but differed in their opinion on the second question. In view of the difference of opinion on the second question, the matter was referred to a third judge. The learned Chief justice has agreed with the view expressed by one of the judges (Ramanujam J.) and in view of the said expression of opinion by the third judge, the second question has to be answered against the Revenue taking note of the opinion expressed by the majority of two as against one. Therefore, both the questions referred in the tax cases have to be answered against the Revenue and they are answered accordingly. The tax cases are ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 13 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... at the Income-tax Officer had extended the time for filing the return till March 31, 1972. As the assessee filed the return on February 11, 1972, it has to be held that the return was filed within the extended time. The application in Form No. 12 can be filed along with the return under proviso (ii) to section 184(7) of the Act. Even if it is held that the present proviso (ii) was not applicable, then the proviso as it existed before April 1, 1971, also laid down that the declaration in Form No. 12 could be filed along with the return. Hence, I hold that the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that although no order was passed by the Income-tax Officer extending the date for furnishing the return under section 139(1) of the Act, there was continuation of registration of the assessee-firm. I, therefore, answer the question referred to above in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (4) TMI 12 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration
... ... ... ... ..... f the questions raised by the respondents in support of their appeals. From this, it follows that the Tribunal committed an error of law in dealing with the merits and holding in favour of the respondents and other tenants. We have, therefore, no choice except to direct the offending portion of the order of the Tribunal, to be deleted. In the result, we allow these appeals in part, set aside only that part of the order of the Tribunal that held that the tenants cannot be ejected under section 269-I of the Act and all its observations touching on the same and maintain the said order in all other respects. But, by this, we should not be understood as having examined the correctness of the view expressed by the Tribunal on the maintainability of the appeals filed by the respondents and expressed our concurrence with the view or otherwise. ITA Nos. 21 and 22 are disposed of in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the cases, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 11 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... ) on which reliance was placed for the assessee, the question that has arisen before us did not at all arise. Even otherwise, the ratio in that case does not really bear on the point. On the foregoing discussion, it follows that our answer to question No. 1 has to be in the affirmative and against the assessee. Sri Prasad in our opinion did not rightly contend that section 51 of the Act in any way helps the assessee to sustain its claim. Even otherwise, we do not find anything in section 51 of the Act to sustain the claim of the assessee on question No. 1 which is the real question of law that arises for determination. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that question No. 2 has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the light of our above discussion, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 10 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e in execution of the contract work relating to the Patratu Thermal Power Plant should be excluded from the gross receipt in determining the net profit by the application of rate and accordingly the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, I refuse to answer the question relating to the contract of the assessee with the Housing Department of the Government of Bihar. The Appellate Tribunal will record a finding whether the Housing Department of the Government of Bihar had control over the materials supplied to the assessee and that the assessee had no control over materials supplied by the Housing Department of the Government of Bihar. In deciding this matter, the Appellate Tribunal will keep in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. CIT 1978 115 ITR 524 and of this court in Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi v. CIT 1980 121 ITR 116. There will be no order as to costs. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (4) TMI 9 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... he order, held that the land of the assessee was agricultural land and so the Tribunal upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The order of the Tribunal has been annexed and marked as annexure C forming part of the statement of the case. I have given detailed reasons for holding that the lands are agricultural lands in Taxation Cases Nos. 71 to 73 of 1976, CWT v. Tara Chand Jain 1987 164 ITR 516, which is also being disposed of today. For the reasons given in the said taxation cases, I hold that the land of the assessee is agricultural land and so it is not liable to capital gains tax. I, therefore, hold that the exclusion of a sum of Rs. 33,750 taxed under the head Capital gains from the total income of the assessee by the Tribunal is legal and proper within the meaning of section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (4) TMI 8 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... nd on the facts of that case it was held that the land was agricultural land and the profit arising from the sale of the land was not liable to capital gains tax. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it has to be held that the lands of the assessee were agricultural lands for the assessment years in question. Under such circumstances, I hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that in the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69, the land owned by the assessee was agricultural land not assessable to wealth-tax under the Act. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However it may be observed that in the subsequent assessment years when this question arises, it will be obligatory for the assessee to show that the land is agricultural land and the Wealth-tax Officer in future will decide the case on the materials placed before him. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (4) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Act Of 1922, Change Of Law, High Court, Income Tax Act, Interest On Refund ... ... ... ... ..... ifficulties) Order, 1962. Clause 4 of this order, very briefly stated, provides that a proceeding by way of appeal, reference or revision in respect of any order made under the Act of 1922 shall be instituted and disposed of as if the repealing Act, namely, the Act of 1961, had not been passed. We fail to see how the provisions of this clause make any difference to the conclusion to which we have arrived. In the result, we are of the view that the learned trial judge was in error in coming to the conclusion that the question of interest was governed by the provisions of section 66(7) of the Act of 1922. He was probably led to this error by reason of the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 0. RM. M. SP. SV. P. Panchanatham Chettiar 1975 99 ITR 579 was not pointed out to him at all. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The writ petition filed by the petitioner (respondent herein) is dismissed and the rule discharged with no order as to costs throughout.
-
1985 (4) TMI 6 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... en. The Tribunal was thus fully justified in cancelling the order of penalty on the first ground. We shall now take up the second question. This arises due to low withdrawals by the assessee. Section 256(1) of the Act enjoins upon the Tribunal to make a reference to this court on any question of law arising out of such order. It is, therefore, elementary that only such question can be referred for our opinion as fell for consideration and as was decided by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal which is annexure-B to this reference is silent in regard to the low withdrawals. In that view of the matter, the reference of the second question for our opinion is misconceived. We, therefore, need not answer the second question. For the reasons stated above, we refuse to answer question No. 2 as it does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 5 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Limitation, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... w wiring resulted in an enduring benefit to the assessee and hence this was a capital expense. The Tribunal followed the judgments of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Atherton West and Co. Ltd. 1971 82 ITR 352, the Patna High Court in CIT v. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. 1964 51 ITR 300 and the Bombay High Court in New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1956 30 ITR 338, wherein there were similar cases of replacement of worn out fittings. Another case referred to was CIT v. Kanodia Cold Storage 1975 100 ITR 155 (All). We agree that this line of cases is to be followed in this case also. The change of the electric wires was necessitated due to wearing out and did not in any way alter the cinema. The capital asset remained just as it was. We would accordingly answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department, but we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1985 (4) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Capital Gains, Entertainment Expenditure, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... ch one of the balance-sheets reflected the true fair market value of the shares sold by the assessee ? This question proceeds on the basis that section 52(2) is applicable to the facts of the case and, therefore, the market value of the shares have to be determined. A reading of the question will indicate that the question posed is as to how the market value of the shares sold by the assessee has to be determined. In view of the fact that we have held in T.C. No. 1180 of 1980 that section 52(2) cannot be applied to the facts of this case as the Revenue has not established that the sale price actually received was more than the one disclosed in the sale deed, there is no question of computation of the capital gains at all on the basis of the market value. In view of the adverse decision given by this court in the said tax case, this question is purely academic and it does not actually arise out of the order of the Tribunal. This reference application is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Terminated employee is granted back wages - tax is to be deducted at source by employer - prescribed relief is set out in rule 21A of the Income-tax Rules. The appellant is entitled to relief under section 89 because compensation herein awarded includes salary which has been in arrears for 18 years as also the compensation in lieu of reinstatement and the relief should be given as provided by section 89
-
1985 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Terminated employee is granted back wages - tax is to be deducted at source by employer - Whether the termination of service of S/Shri Sant Raj and Itwari Lal Sherya is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief are they entitled - held that assessee's are entitled to spread over relief u/s 89
....
|