Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 239 of 239 Records
-
1986 (11) TMI 19 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Charitable Institution, Exemptions, Investment, Lending ... ... ... ... ..... rt to make an investigation as in section 47 of the Code or paragraph 9 of the Second Schedule of the Act, then such intendment should have been expressed. An implied meaning, therefore, cannot be introduced for conferment of jurisdiction on the civil court to go into the questions of execution, discharge and satisfaction. The legislative intention is, therefore, that on a petition under section 226(4), the amount in deposit in the civil-court can be straightaway recovered. In the petition under section 226(4), the petitioner-Income-tax Officer has claimed recovery of Rs. 2,99,413.50 which is in deposit with the learned court below to the credit of the opposite parties which they are jointly and severally liable to pay as arrears of tax and is liable to be recovered. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petition of the Income-tax Officer under section 226(4) of the Act is allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1986 (11) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Institution, Exemptions, Investment, Lending ... ... ... ... ..... ssessments of the petitioners for the aforementioned three years in regard to this method of valuation. While the Income-tax Officer may or may not be right in the method of valuation that he proposes to substitute, it cannot be said that the method employed heretofore by the petitioners and accepted by the income-tax authorities over the years is an obvious or patent mistake. If at all it is a mistake, it is a mistake whose discovery will require investigation and debate. Even then, there may conceivably be two opinions about the proper method of valuation in the particular circumstances. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that there is a mistake apparent on the record which entitles the Income-tax Officer to invoke the provisions of section l54 by the issuance of the impugned notices. The impugned notices must, accordingly, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be restrained from taking any steps pursuant thereto. Rule absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1986 (11) TMI 17 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... etharam s case 1987 165 ITR 568 (Raj) and, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses of Rs. 4,826 incurred in providing tea and cold drinks to the visitors and customers were not entertainment expenses and, therefore, are not hit by the provisions of section 37(2B) of the Act and were allowable expenses in computing the total income of the company. As regards question No. 2, it may be mentioned that this question was suggested by the assessee in his application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal thought it proper to refer this question as well. But since the application under section 256(1) of the Act was preferred by the Department for referring question No. 1, the Tribunal was not competent to refer question No. 2 at the instance of the assessee on an application filed by the Department and the reference on that question must be considered to be void. Therefore, we refuse to answer that question.
-
1986 (11) TMI 16 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... o the same against the petitioner is detected, there would be no impediment in the way of the respondent in filing a fresh complaint, if so advised, against the petitioner, but as at present, the entire substratum of the present complaint having been taken away by the setting aside of the assessment order, the present complaint cannot continue and has to be quashed and in this view of the matter, the impugned order dated July 23, 1986, passed by Smt. Manju Goel, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, being erroneous cannot be allowed to stand. If, in support of this proposition, any authority is needed, the same is furnished by a decision of this court in W.L. Kohli v. CIT 1985 152 ITR 154. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated July 23, 1986, of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is set aside and the complaint at present pending against the petitioner as also all the subsequent proceedings therein are quashed. Petition allowed.
-
1986 (11) TMI 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... te possession taken on March 25, 1970, cannot be connected to section 16 or section 17 and such bare possession does not have the effect of vesting. In RDO v. Vasireddy Rama Bhanu Bhupal, AIR 1970 AP 262, the Full Bench of this court while considering the issue of payment of interest from the date of taking possession highlighted the vital distinction between the factum of taking possession and taking possession pursuant to section 16 or section 17 of the Act and held that the payment of interest can be directed from the date of taking possession though such possession is taken under the provisions of the Act. I agree with the answer proposed. Learned counsel for the assessee makes an oral request for grant of certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 of the Income-tax Act on the ground that the present case is a fit one to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are not, however, satisfied that this is a fit case as such. The oral request is accordingly rejected.
-
1986 (11) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Company, Winding Up ... ... ... ... ..... 3 140 ITR 428 (Bom), CIT v. Bharat Machinery and Hardware. Mart 1982 136 ITR 875, (Guj) and CIT v. Ajit Singh Bhagat Singh 1985 151 ITR 696 (Raj), a Division Bench judgment of this court and CIT v. Hazari Mal Milap Chand Surana 1987 163 ITR 531 for the proposition that the assessee cannot be held guilty and was right in not disclosing the income of the assessee-company, being under liquidation, as an income assessable under the Act under a bona fide belief and, therefore, he was not liable to any interest. We are in agreement with the view expressed by this court in the earlier two cases cited above. Therefore, the question referred to above is answered in the affirmative and it is held that the assessee was not under an obligation to file an estimate in terms of section 212(3A) of the Act and was not liable to pay any interest under section 217(1A). The Additional Registrar is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Tribunal in accordance with section 260 of the Act.
-
1986 (11) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... essary for us in the present case to decide whether any document other than the instrument of partnership can be seen for this purpose where the contract of partnership is evidenced by an instrument, since a reading of this application of the assessee also does not improve the situation. There is no specification made even in this application of the proportion in which losses of the firm were to be shared only by the adult partners. Consequently, this reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue as under 1. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was not entitled to registration for the assessment year 1972-73 and continuation of registration for the assessment year 1973-74 due to non-specification of shares in losses in the partnership deed dated October 30, 1971. 2. The Tribunal was justified in holding that shares in losses were not specified in the partnership deed dated October 30, 1971. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (11) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... funds should be left in the hands of the liquidators. For the reasons as aforesaid, we direct the liquidators to set apart sum of Rs. 1,80,000 out of the said amount of Rs. 20 lakhs as against the outstanding claims of other creditors against the company in liquidation and direct the liquidators to pay the balance to the Income-tax Officer against their pending demands. This order is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the company in liquidation in the pending income-tax proceedings. We make it clear that we have not adjudicated on the merits of the assessments. The balance of Rs. 5,53,973 which will remain in the hands of the liquidators, in our view, will be sufficient to provide for future liquidation expenses. According to the liquidators, a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 would be suitable provision for such future expenses. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. On the facts and circumstances, each party will pay and bear its own costs. MONJULA BOSE J.-I agree.
-
1986 (11) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... the items of expenditure categorised under clause (b) should be given a broad connotation and any expenditure connected with export directly or even in remote manner is eligible for deduction. We are unable to subscribe to this proposition. Section 35B is obviously intended to give extra deduction for the items of expenditure contemplated therein with a view to give an incentive and fillip to the export market. This additional deduction over and above the normal deduction under section 37 of the Act should be allowed if the expenditure is strictly within the contours of the items of expenditure comprised in clause (b) and if a liberal or stretched interpretation is given, the object of giving additional deduction will be defeated. We agree with the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal that the items of expenditure in question fall within sub-clauses (ii) and (viii) of section 35B(1)(b). In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1986 (11) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Benami, Income From House Property, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... red to this court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the reference has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Tribunal found that there was no material whatsoever on record for coming to the conclusion that the requisite amount for investment in the purchase of the plot and for the construction of the house came from the wife. The Tribunal further found that there was no material on record to show that the wife of the assessee had received any rent in respect of the house which was admittedly let out. In view of these findings, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in law in including the income from the house property and the interest income in the name of the wife as the income of the assessee. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1986 (11) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... , the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment in this case for the assessment year 1974-75 was rightly reopened under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? and they were answered in the negative and against the Department. In the case of Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. 1960 39 ITR 114 (SC) their Lordships had found that the High Court was in error in treating interest derived from deposits as not arising from the business of the bank and, therefore, not falling within the income exempted under the notification. The appeal was thus allowed and the order of the High Court was set aside. In view of these decisions and section 80P of the Income-tax Act, no question of law arises as has been contended by learned Counsel for the Department for which a direction may be required to be given to the Tribunal for stating the case. In our opinion, even with regard to the donation amount, no question of law arises. These applications are, therefore dismissed summarily.
-
1986 (11) TMI 8 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Revision, Spot Assessment Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... nt of the first batch of cases, namely, Taxation Cases Nos. 93 to 98 of 1978 decided by this court on June 13, 1986 (CIT v. Pushpa Devi 1987 164 ITR 639) which were followed by the judgment passed by this court in the second batch of cases, namely, Taxation Cases Nos. 21 to 23 of 1978 on September 4, 1986 (CIT v. Rambha Devi 1987 164 ITR 658), we answer the questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. But, on the special facts and in the circumstances of these cases, we make no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Assistant Registrar of the relevant Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1986 (11) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Indirect Tax, Refund, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... te the fact that the Department had allowed the judgment of the Madras High Court to become final and had thereby allowed a situation to develop wherein a large number of fertiliser manufacturers were found entitled to the refund of this money. We cannot find any sound reason why one manufacturer alone out of several manufacturers should be compelled to pay an impost or tax which cannot be legally collected from the others. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that justice demands that the petitioner should also be accorded similar treatment. Accordingly, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in D. Cawasji and Co. v. State of Mysore 1975 AIR 1975 SC 813, we dismiss this writ appeal with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. In view of the conflicting observations of the two Supreme Court judgments, we certify that this case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and, in our opinion, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
-
1986 (11) TMI 6 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... e placed on record certain documents showing that approval of the Commissioner was obtained for the retention of the documents. Learned counsel appearing for the Department contends that the Department has no objection to the return of the account books and the documents subject to the conditions that the Department at their own cost shall obtain photocopies of the relevant entries and the documents and they should be attested by the petitioner to be true copies. We see no reason to refuse the above request of the Department. Without going into the merits of the petition, we direct that the respondents shall within 15 days from today prepare the photo copies of the relevant entries and documents and thereafter the books of account and the documents seized from the petitioner shall be returned to him after the petitioner certifies the photo copies to be true copies of his books of account and documents. The petition is disposed of. We leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1986 (11) TMI 5 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Benami Property
... ... ... ... ..... same in accordance with law. In view of the submission of Mr. Dey, I am not dismissing the suit as not maintainable but am giving an opportunity to the respondent to file an application in the court below regarding the facts which are required to be pleaded as provided under section 281A of the Act. If no such application for amendment of the plaint is filed by the respondent within a reasonable time to be granted by the court below, the suit shall be dismissed by it by holding that it is not maintainable. If such an application for amendment is made by the respondent and if the court below is satisfied that there has been compliance with section 281A of the Act before the institution of the suit, it shall allow the amendment. It shall, if such prayer is made on behalf of the respondent, thereafter hear the injunction matter again. In that case, it shall keep in view the observations made above and shall also consider the effect of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
-
1986 (11) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Charitable Institution, Exemptions, Investment, Lending ... ... ... ... ..... voured to bracket the transaction under investment so as to attract the denial of exemption under clause (h). The amount is advanced on an agreed rate of interest and, therefore, the transaction is within the fold of lending and it cannot be considered as an investment. The lending in clause (a) should be supported by adequate interest or security. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the rate of interest at 12 is normal and adequate and the firm is financially sound and the. Appellate Tribunal confirmed the finding. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 and the conditions under section 13(2)(a) are satisfied and section 13 (2) (h) is not applicable. In the result, the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No costs. Referred Case No. 140 of 1982 This reference arising under the Wealth-tax Act has to be answered in favour of the assessee following the decision in Referred Case No. 185 of 1980. No costs.
-
1986 (11) TMI 3 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... . At the instance of the assessee, the above question was stated for our opinion. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. We are unable to see any connection between the two amounts. The amount upon which interest was paid to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited was raised by way of loan for setting up the plant and the interest income was earned on the contributions made by the shareholders towards the shares allotted to them. Both are distinct items and it is not possible to see any reasonable connection between them. Neither by section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, nor by applying the test of a prudent person managing his affairs, can it be said that the interest earned on the contributions made by the shareholders can be set off against the interest payable by the assessee. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1986 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Decree passed by the trial court - contention of appellant that a suit as filed by the respondent and the decree granted by the trial court was not permissible in law as it was contended that such proceedings for appointment of a receiver can only be contemplated in execution proceedings of decree against the original debtor, is not acceptable - held that decree for appointment of receiver to realise dues of managing agency company from the managed company is proper
-
1986 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Application for condonation of delay - reason of delay not explained - no justification for condonation of delay - application rejected
....
|