|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 273 Records
-
1985 (7) TMI 73 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reason To Believe, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... sted for reopening the assessment. In these circumstances, we think it more convenient that the Income-tax Officer decides the question as a preliminary issue during the proceedings for reopening the assessment. This will enable the Income-tax Officer to both exhibit the material and also show that there is a connection between the alleged concealment and the said material. If there is no connection and there is no ground for reopening the assessment, the proceedings must be dropped. We would accordingly direct the Income-tax Officer to decide this point as a preliminary issue. In case this question is decided against the assessee, it will always be open to the assessee to raise the point before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal and possibly by a further reference to this court. This procedure is more satisfactory in the circumstances of this case. We would accordingly dispose of this petition and the connected writ petitions with this direction in limine.
-
1985 (7) TMI 72 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Limitation, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... nnuity received shall, therefore, continue to bear the same character as it had when the assets, out of which the income arose, were held in private hands. This decision is clearly distinguishable on facts and we have no hesitation in saying that it is of no assistance to the learned counsel for the Revenue. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the annuity received by the assessee in the previous years, by way of compensation for the resumption of the jagir lands by the Government, was a revenue receipt liable to tax. In our opinion, the compensation that was paid to the assessee by way of annuity in perpetuity after the resumption of the jagir lands was a capital receipt. The question referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, There will be no order as to costs. Let the Tribunal be informed of the judgment as required by section 260(1) of the Act.
-
1985 (7) TMI 71 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... at pains to repeatedly emphasise that the Income-tax Officer applied double standards. While computing the fair market value of the shares on the date of sale during 1972-73, he adopted the break-up value without any deduction. But while determining the market value as on January 1, 1954, he applied rule ID. Under this rule, the fair market value is the break-up value less 15 . We are constrained to observe that this submission need not have been made. The Income-tax Officer s adoption of the fair market value at Rs. 202 per share was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The figure of Rs. 245 per share fixed by the Reserve Bank of India was taken as the fair market value. This view was affirmed by the Tribunal. The first part of the question of law referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. In this view, the second part of the question does not arise and need not be answered. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (7) TMI 70 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... object of general public utility and so when this was the sole object, the income derived therefrom in the shape of rents from the income of the dharmshala is exempt under section 11 read with section 2(15) of the Act. At the risk of repetition, it may be stated that the object of the trust is not to earn profit, but the object of running the dharmshala is of general public utility. For the aforesaid reasons, we are disposed to think that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the trust is not for charitable purpose and as such does not fall within section 11 read with section 2(15) of the Act. This is in conformity with the view taken by the apex court of the country in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufactures case 1980 121 ITR 1 (SC). We answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. Let the Tribunal be informed of this order as required by section 260(1) of the Act.
-
1985 (7) TMI 69 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... o do in this case. We accordingly answer the question referred to us in the affirmative on the footing that Anwar Ali s case 1970 76 ITR 696 applies to the facts of this case, after the Explanation has been satisfied by showing the absence of fraud or neglect. It is to be noted that Shri Lal Chand stated that he had received Rs. 13,000 by cheques but no attempt was made to show that no such cheques were received by him. Nor is there any counter-evidence of any sort available on the record. We feel that no properly informed judicial authority could disregard such a statement based on payments made by cheques, without a proper analysis of the same. The Tribunal was, therefore, perfectly right in applying the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anwar Ali 1970 76 ITR 696 to the facts and circumstances of the case. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee, but there will be no order as to costs as the matter has been heard ex Parte.
-
1985 (7) TMI 68 - KERALA HIGH COURT
House Property, Vacancy Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... eriod during which such part is wholly unoccupied which would mean that vacancy allowance would relate to the portion of the annual value appropriate to the vacant part which is proportionate to the period during which such part was wholly unoccupied. This view is supported by the decision of this court in Joy P. Jacob s case 1985 151 ITR 19. We are of the opinion that there is substance in this contention and that, though the assessee might not be entitled to relief in terms of the first limb of clause (ix) of section 24(1) of the Act, he would nevertheless be entitled to relief in terms of the second limb of clause (ix). The quantum of deduction permissible is a matter to be worked out by the Tribunal. The result, therefore, is that the question of law referred to us is answered in the above lines as stated in para. 4 supra. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the court may be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1985 (7) TMI 67 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Month, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the General Clauses Act, 1897. In this view of the matter, the return which was received by the Wealth-tax Officer on September 15, 1973, was within a month and not after a completed month and, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding that there was a delay of one month in filing the return under section 14(1) of the Act. The answer to the first question is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the, Revenue. Question No. (2) In view of the, answer given by us to question No. (1), it necessarily follows that no penalty could be imposed under section 18(1)(i) of the Act on the assessee for the return which was received on September 15, 1973, by the Wealth-tax Officer as there was no delay of one completed month. The answer to the second question is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Tribunal as required by section 27(6) of the Act.
-
1985 (7) TMI 66 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... atever substantive rights had accrued to the assessee prior to April 1, 1973, they could not be taken away. In these circumstances, no valid exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that there was no capital gain to the assessee as a result of the sale of gold ornaments and jewellery which was affirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the Department. For the aforesaid reasons that the gold ornaments and jewellery became capital assets only from April 1, 1973, the finding of the Tribunal is right and justified, and so no capital gain to the assessee accrued as result of the sale of gold ornaments and jewellery during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74. The aforesaid question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Tribunal as required by section 260(1) of the Act.
-
1985 (7) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. However, the learned counsel relying on Juggi Lal Kamlapat v . Ram Janki Gupta, AIR 1962 All 407 Raja Himanshu Dhar Singh v. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, AIR 1962 All 439 Mehta Parikh and Co. v. CIT 1956 30 ITR 181 (SC) Dilip Kumar Roy v. CIT 1974 94 ITR 1 (Bom) and D. Yasodamma v. CIT 1968 70 ITR 515 (AP), contended that the correctness of the conclusion arrived at on the proved facts would constitute a question of law. None of the decisions relied upon supports this contention. Since long, it has been settled by the Supreme Court that an inference drawn on a question of fact on appreciation of evidence is nothing but a finding of fact. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the rejection of the affidavit of Smt. Surji Devi by the Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case, does not give rise to any question of law and the reference is accordingly declined. No costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 64 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... d that no plausible explanation was given by the assessee in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the assessee for this purpose, with the result that the presumption arising by virtue of the Explanation has been unrebutted. This conclusion of the Tribunal, apart from being one of fact, is also borne out from the reasons given in support thereof. There is thus no basis to hold in favour of the assessee even in respect of the penalty matter. Consequently, both the questions are answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee as under Misc. Civil Case No. 164 of 1982 Answer On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,000 in its order dated August 13, 1976. Misc. Civil Case No. 462 of 1981 Answer On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 63 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee to satisfy us regarding the details of the expenses amounting to Rs. 809 in regard to hotel expenses and further to show us as to how this expenditure falls under the head of business expenditure. Learned counsel candidly submitted that he is not in a position either to give the details of the expenditure of Rs. 809 nor that it falls under the head business expenditure , so that it may be allowed. In these circumstances, we are left with no alternative but to answer this question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, for, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 809. Question No. (1) is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. (2) is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We leave the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Tribunal in accordance with section 260(1) of the Act.
-
1985 (7) TMI 62 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... right in affirming the decision of the officers below in levying the tax. It was sought to be argued by Mr. Balwant Singh Gupta that in certain amendments, it is specifically provided as to for which assessment years the same would be applicable and since it is not mentioned in the amendment in question that it would apply to the assessment year 1973-74, the amendment would take effect only in the subsequent year, i.e., 1974-75. Different phraseologies are employed while making amendments but whenever amendments are made with effect from the first day of April of any financial year, according to the dictum of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the amendment would apply to the assessments to be made for that year and that is what the Tribunal has held and we are in agreement with that. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the proposed question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 61 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... r dated August 20, 1976, the appeal was allowed and the necessary relief was granted to the assessee. Since the Tribunal refused to refer the case to this court on an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), on the finding that no question of law arose from its order, the Commissioner of Income-tax has filed an application under section 256(2) of the Act in this court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal and pure questions of fact are involved, which, on appreciation of evidence, have been answered by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Since the learned counsel appearing for the Department has not been able to point out any question of law which may arise from the order, we have no option but to dismiss the application leaving the parties to bear their own costs and we order accordingly.
-
1985 (7) TMI 60 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... bruary 2, 1977, on the ground that no question of law arose for referring the matter to this court and pure questions of fact were involved. Feeling aggreived, the Commissioner of Income-tax has come to this court under section 256(2) of the Act seeking mandamus. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are in agreement with the Tribunal that no question of law arises in this case. Out of Rs. 1,06,375, a sum of Rs. 75,000 was claimed as a bad debt from the cotton mills, which became a sick textile undertaking and was taken over as such under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. The Tribunal has recorded a finding on consideration of the facts on record that they reasonably point to an inference that, having regard to the circumstances of the debtor, it has become difficult or impossible to recover. Hence, no case is made out. For the reasons recorded above, the application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... u undivided family. This question specifically came up before the Supreme Court in Firm Bhagat Ram Mohan Lal v. CEPT 1956 29 ITR 521 and it was held that a coparcener cannot be a partner with the karta of a Hindu undivided family with the aid of the assets of the family which obviously means that he can enter into partnership if he has individual assets apart from his share in the Hindu undivided family assets. At this stage, it is not necessary for us to enter into an elaborate discussion on this question but the fact remains that questions Nos. 1 and 3 are questions of law which do arise from the order of the Tribunal. As it gave no finding that before cancelling the registration for the year 1965-66, it was necessary to cancel the registration for the year 1964-65, question No. 2 does not arise from its judgment. In the result, a mandamus is issued requiring the Tribunal to refer questions Nos. 1 and 3 together with the statement of the case to this court for its opinion.
-
1985 (7) TMI 58 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... sed. Even assuming that this reason has prompted respondent No. 1 to issue the notices, still it must be concluded that this was a wholly unsustainable reason to exercise power under section 148 of the Act. Mr. Deodhar conceded that the minor son of the petitioner, Jatin S. Patel, is also an assessee and his assessment has been duly completed. It was easy for the Income-tax Officer to find out why the amount of interest secured on the deposit was not disclosed by the petitioner at the time of completion of the assessment and the failure of the Income-tax Officer to do so would not entitle him to reopen the proceedings by exercise of the powers under sections 147 and 148 of the Act. In my judgment, the issuance of notices by the respondent No. 1 was totally illegal and, therefore, the notices are required to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 57 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Om Parkash v. CIT 1972 83 ITR 356 and the other of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anwar Ali 1970 76 ITR 696 for accepting the explanation offered by the assessee. The decision in Addl. CIT v. Karnail Singh 1974 94 ITR 505 (P and H), was overruled by this court in a later Full Bench decision in Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT 1982 135 ITR 652 (P and H) which also clarified that the ratio of Anwar Ali s case which was based on the provisions of section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is no longer relevant for the construction of section 27 l(1)(c) as amended up to date. We are, therefore, of the opinion that question No. 1 does arise from the said order of the Tribunal. Question No. 2, it was conceded by the learned counsel for the Revenue, need not be got referred being superfluous and fully covered by question No. 1. Accordingly , the Tribunal is directed to refer the said question No. 1 together with the statement of the case for the opinion of this court. No costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 56 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... Income-tax, the following question arising out of the order of the Tribunal has been referred to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the value of the gold bars seized from him as trading loss ? The finding recorded by the assessing authority was that the assessee had been carrying on smuggling of gold for the last several years and this finding was never challenged by the Revenue at any stage. In view of this finding, the learned counsel for the Revenue could not dispute that the present case is fully covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Piara Singh 1972 83 ITR 678 which is affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Piara Singh 1980 124 ITR 40. Accordingly, the said question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee shall also be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 250.
-
1985 (7) TMI 55 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm, Income ... ... ... ... ..... fit which came to the share of Alisher from his main partnership, there was an overriding obligation on the part of Alisher. In these circumstances, section 182 of the Act is applicable. For the reasons aforesaid, in our opinion, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee-firm is not liable to pay any tax on its income. Question No. 1 referred to us has to be answered in the negative. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, it need not detain us long, for, in view of the answer to question No. 1 given by us hereinabove, it necessarily follows that there is no double taxation so far as charging of tax on the sub-partnership is concerned. This question is also answered in the negative. The result is that both the questions referred to us are answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. Let the answers be returned in accordance with the provisions of section 260(1) of the Act.
-
1985 (7) TMI 54 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... rder 41, rule 3A, provide that an application for condoning the delay is to be filed along with the appeal. So, if the appeal is returned on the ground that it is barred by time, the appellant can file an application for extension of limitation under section 5 of the Limitation Act or any other provision that may be applicable. If no such application for extension is filed, then the court may reject the appeal. There is a similarity, we think, in regard to the procedure to be followed by the Income-tax Officer under section 184(7). If the declaration is rejected on the ground that it is barred by time, then a further appeal will certainly lie on the ground that the declaration has been wrongly rejected, either under section 246(c) or section 246(j). We accordingly answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The conclusion will be that the Tribunal will now examine the appeal on merits. We make no order as to costs.
....
|
