|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 273 Records
-
1985 (7) TMI 33 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the evidence before the Tribunal may be direct or circumstantial and even when circumstantial evidence formed the basis for the conclusion of the Tribunal, no question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal. In Addl. CIT v. Gem Palace 1975 98 ITR 640 (Raj), it was held by Bench of this court that when the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion on the basis of which the penalty was cancelled, it was a pure finding of fact and no question of law arose. In view of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal in the present case accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding the delay in filing the return and held that there was reasonable cause for the delay and further that the conduct of the assessee was neither contumacious nor dishonest, we agree with the Appellate Tribunal that the aforesaid finding is a pure finding of fact and no question of law arises in this case. The reference application is, therefore, rejected, but without any order as to costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 32 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1960-61 to 1966-67, after the dissolution of the firm on January 18, 1957, and whether assessments could be made in respect of the assessee during the aforesaid years ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any change had occurred in the status of the assessee, after the joint receivers took over the business of M/s. Duduwala and Company and carried on the same, in accordance with the agreement dated June 4, 1960 ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not directing the assessment and computation of tax in accordance with section 161 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the shares of the beneficiaries are determined ? We, therefore, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the aforesaid four questions of law arising out of its orders dated August 7, 1975, and August 31, 1978, to this court for its opinion. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 31 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... ur of the assessee and the Tribunal was not correct in holding that a return filed under section 139(4) of the Act can be revised in terms of section 139(5) of the Act and the Tribunal was also not right in holding that the revised return filed on December 7, 1972, could be further revised on December 5, 1973. If the subsequent returns are taken out of consideration, the assessment was required to be completed on or before March 31, 1973. In the present case, the assessment order was completed on March 30, 1974. So the assessment order is barred by time and is nullity and non est. So question No. 3 is also answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and it is held that the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the assessment order completed on March 30, 1974, is not barred by time. All the three questions are answered as above. The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Information be sent to the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.
-
1985 (7) TMI 30 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... y to examine them because the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to hereinabove fully govern the case on hand. The aforesaid authorities cited by Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the Revenue, are distinguishable inasmuch as in none of them the question arose whether the amount of interest paid on account of delay caused in payment of sales tax within the statutory time, was an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid to the Sales Tax Department on the arrears of sales tax under section 11B of the Act of 1954 was an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. Let the answer be returned to the Tribunal as required by section 260(1) of the Act.
-
1985 (7) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... s assessable as income in the assessment year 1960-61 was the ultimate decision on that point by this court differing from the Tribunal s view thereon. This being so, the very basis on which the impugned order of the Tribunal proceeded for rejecting the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s conclusion with regard to the item of Rs. 30,000 (shown as item No. 3 in its order) disappears and, therefore, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal on this point was clearly not justified as also its ultimate direction to the Income-tax Officer for re-examination of this item on the basis indicated by it. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, our answer to the question referred is as under On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to determine the amount of peak credit considering the sum of Rs. 34,000 alleged to be withdrawn from the bank as assessable in 1961-62. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 28 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Individual Property, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... chela, sons, grandsons and great grandsons. It is thus clear that the interest which devolved on the assessee-respondent in the properties was ancestral. The properties granted to Motiram devolved from generation to generation. The properties in the hands of the assessee are thus ancestral and as such belong to the Hindu undivided family of which he (assessee) was a karta. Having considered the reasons given by the Tribunal in its order dated April 28, 1977, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified when after construing the grant it came to the conclusion that the interest of the assessee-respondent in the properties was ancestral and, as such, it constituted Hindu undivided family properties in his hands. We, therefore, answer the aforementioned question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. The Tribunal should be informed about this decision in accordance with section 260(1) of the Act.
-
1985 (7) TMI 27 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Profits Chargeable To Tax ... ... ... ... ..... AP), where the Andhra Pradesh High Court has said (p. 371) If the assessee which received the refund is the same assessee which paid the tax during the said assessment years, it constitutes its income under section 41(1), and it is immaterial what it does with that income later. Whether it appropriates the money to itself, or gives it away to some persons, whether bona fide or under a misapprehension of law, or whether it gifts away that amount to someone else, are not factors relevant to the question of taxability. It would thus be seen that the cases cited above are not of any assistance so far as the arguments on the side of the assessee is concerned. The result is that the conditions of section 41(1) of the Act are satisfied and the assessee is liable to be taxed on the sum of Rs. 44,395. The answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1985 (7) TMI 26 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment, Income Tax, Service Of Notice ... ... ... ... ..... we grant time to the petitioners to file their objections, if any, to the original proposition notice received by them before the A.I.T.O. on or before September 13, 1985. We direct the petitioners to appear before the A.I.T.O. on October 8, 1985, and produce all such material that they propose to produce in support of their case and the A.I.T.O. is free to complete his assessment on that day or any other date that may be fixed by him (iii) we direct that the security, if any, furnished by the petitioners in pursuance of the interim order made by this court shall be kept in force till the assessment proceedings are completed by the A.I.T.O. We also direct the A.I.T.O. to regulate the refund and recoveries in conformity with the assessment order to be made by him. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Let this order be communicated to the respondents within 15 days from this day.
-
1985 (7) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the continuity of the firm. The only other contention raised by the counsel for the Revenue is that the assessee had failed to prove that there were bad debts during the year. In support of this contention the decision in Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra v. CIT 1963 49 ITR 177 (All) (sic) and Munnalal Biharilal v. CIT 1956 30 ITR 809 (Nag) were cited. He has also a case that the burden of proof in regard to the bad debts is on the assessee. The Tribunal having considered all the aspects of the matter found that it was really bad debts with respect to which the assessee was entitled to claim deduction. This being a question of fact, really no question of law, in our opinion, arises in the matter. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of the judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the court will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1985 (7) TMI 24 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Ruler's Palaces ... ... ... ... ..... nts, the assessee could not be considered to be in the occupation of the said portion, for, the tenants, who are in possession have a legal right to remain in possession so long they are not evicted by due process of law. At the relevant time, the portion of the palace which was rented out to the tenants was thus not in the occupation of the Ruler and for this reason, the annual value of the portion, which was not in the occupation of the assessee, was rightly added to the total income of the assessee, as under section 10(19A) of the Act, such income cannot be excluded, for it is not exempt from payment of income-tax. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is, therefore, correct. For the reasons aforesaid, the question referred to us for our opinion, is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. Let the Tribunal be informed of this order as required by section 260(1) of the Act
-
1985 (7) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cate for the assessee cited the said decision of the Allahabad High Court in Indian Motor Transport Co. Ltd. 1978 114 ITR 677 and also a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Mathuralal Kapoorchand and Co. 1983 141 ITR 297. The later decision was cited for the proposition that whether a debt has become bad or not cannot be determined merely on the basis of statement of assets and liabilities of the creditor. This decision is of little relevance in the facts before us and supports the case of the assessee indirectly. We accept the contention of the assessee that the point raised in the question is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1958 AIR 1958 SC 328, as also the earlier decision of this court in Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. 1983 140 ITR 286 (Cal). We answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as costs. G. N. RAY J.-I agree.
-
1985 (7) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... cessity or expediency. The conversion of a large number of small rooms into a big hall would make it more suitable for the office purposes, and the expenses were entailed for carrying on the business more efficiently and profitably by the assessee, and particularly when the improvements were made in the leased premises. The advantage obtained by the assessee was for the purposes of business of the assessee, and not for obtaining a capital asset. The High Court, therefore, held that the Tribunal was not right in disallowing the sum of Rs. 30,000. We are in respectful agreement with the principles which have weighed with the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in viewing the redesigning of the available space of the office premises which they were holding as lessees. In that view of the matter, therefore, we must answer question No. in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the facts of the case, there should be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ourt are the following 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal right in holding that-- (i) the assessment has not been validly reopened ? (ii) the reassessment has to be cancelled ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal right in holding that the note of the audit party and the valuation report could hardly be called information ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the findings that the Wealth-tax Officer himself had perused the records and had come to the conclusion on the basis of the alternative method , is the Tribunal right in holding that this would only amount to a change of opinion and nothing more ? The Revenue having failed to make out an arguable case, we hold that no question of law for reference to this court arises out of the order of the Tribunal and, in that view, the writ petition is dismissed we do not, however, make any order as to costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 20 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
HUF, Partial Partition In HUF ... ... ... ... ..... unsel for the Revenue further submitted that the Tribunal has not expressed any opinion regarding question No. 2 which is referred to this court for its opinion. It is no doubt true that the Tribunal is silent on this point but it is not in dispute that the decision on question No. 2 depends on the decision on question No. 1. If question No. 1 has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department, the answer to question No. 2 has also to be similarly in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Thus, after hearing learned counsel and after going through the case law, the position under the Hindu law regarding partition being quite clear, we are of the opinion that the reference has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department in respect of both the questions. Our answer to questions Nos. 1 and No. 2, therefore, is in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 19 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Perquisite, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... nt of premium on an insurance policy of an employee of a company. On the very principle enunciated in Amco Batteries case 1984 150 ITR 48 (Kar) and otherwise also, we have no doubt in holding that insurance premia paid are not a perquisite within the meaning of that term occurring in the Act. For all these reasons, we hold that question No. 2 in ITRC No. 220 of 1979 has to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the light of the above discussion, we furnish our answers to the questions referred to us as hereunder I. T. R. C No. 219 of 1979 Question No. 1 Answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. I.T. R. C No. 220 of 1979 Question No. 1 Answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 Answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. But, in the circumstances of the cases, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 18 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Collaboration Agreement, Income Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India ... ... ... ... ..... company in India during the accounting year in question. On these and other relevant facts, the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, applying the principles enunciated in Carborandum Co. v. CIT 1977 108 ITR 335 (SC), found that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 26 lakhs had not accrued and had not been received by the Swiss company in India to subject the same to tax under the Act. We cannot take exception to this finding of fact on any ground. When once this finding of fact is found to be correct, it follows that on the application of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Carborandum Company s case 1977 108 ITR 335 the question referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the light of our above discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, Certificate U/S 261 ... ... ... ... ..... if the assessee proceeds on the basis of one view, whether there is deliberate concealment so as to attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ? This court in ITO v. Burmah Shell Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. 1982 Tax LR 1679 1987 163 ITR 496 (Cal) and in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ITO 1981 130 ITR 405 (Cal), took a view in favour of the assessee on the issue. In the judgment before us, a view in favour of the Revenue has been taken. We find this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court and a certificate under section 261 of the Act is directed to be issued. There will also be an order in terms of prayer (b). Let the order directing issue of certificate be drawn up separately. G. N. RAY J.--I agree.
-
1985 (7) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... f the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion on the basis of the material on record that the expenditure of Rs. 43,831 was incurred by the assessee for imparting training in maintenance and manufacturing techniques and not for the purpose of installation of the machinery ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 43,831 incurred by the assessee as training expenses and Rs. 6,778 spent as business promotion expenses before the commencement of the production did not form part of the actual cost for the purpose of allowing depreciation allowance ? The reference application is allowed. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the above mentioned two questions of law arising out of its order dated April 28, 1981, to this court. The parties are left to bear their own costs of these proceedings in this court.
-
1985 (7) TMI 15 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... roversy before the Tribunal arose because the list of goods hypothecated to Laxmi Commercial Bank differed from the stock-in-hand as disclosed by the account books of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the extra stock disclosed in the list filed with the bank was the undisclosed income of the assessee. The Tribunal, however, referred to the practice of filing inflated lists for the purpose of getting a loan and also referred to the fact that for the purpose of a loan the stock would be valued at market price, whereas in the books it would be valued at cost. The Tribunal also noted that the accounting period closed on April 12, 1977, whereas the figures obtained from the bank were as on March 1, 1977. We think that no question of law arises as the stock indicated by the assessee s account books have been accepted by the Tribunal and this is a conclusion of fact from which no question of law arises. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Liability To Tax, Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... eal to the Supreme Court. We are of the opinion that since a consensus has been reached between the assessee and the Revenue to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in appeal preferred by Kartikey V. Sarabhai from the aforesaid decision of this court, being Civil Appeal No. 1777 of 1981 (Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT and Kartikey V Sarabhai v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 509 (SC)) it may be necessary to grant leave to appeal, which, however, is not pressed for by the present assessee, in view of the consensus. Oral application, therefore, stands disposed of accordingly. The consensus is that the parties will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid appeal and will not object to the Tribunal adjusting its order under section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, and the Revenue shall not enforce the demand till the Tribunal adjusts according to the decision of the Supreme Court liberty reserved in case of difficulty.
....
|
