|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 237 of 237 Records
-
1986 (3) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... 1961, for our opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the dumpers in the hands of the assessee were not road transport vehicles but were the tools of the business of the assessee and the assessee was entitled to get development rebate on the cost of dumpers ? It is not necessary for us to examine the question on merits since Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has conceded that the dumpers are road transport vehicles and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to development rebate as claimed by it. In view of this concession made by Mr. Shah, the question referred to us must be answered in the negative and against the assessee. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment should be sent under the seal of this court and under the signature of the Registrar to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad.
-
1986 (3) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of payment of refund, set off the amount to be refunded against the sum payable by the person, but only after giving intimation in writing to such person of the proposed action. Shri Devadhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, had to concede that the Income-tax Officer did not give any intimation to the petitioner before making adjustment while passing the assessment order for the assessment year 1983-84. In my judgment, the action of the Income-tax Officer is wholly illegal and the respondents were clearly in error in not refunding the amount of Rs. 4,26,090 to the petitioner forthwith. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 4,26,090 to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. The respondents shall ensure that the refund order is actually handed over to the petitioner before the expiry of two weeks. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petition.
-
1986 (3) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The two weeks undoubtedly expired on March 21, 1986. However, we had made it clear on the earlier occasion when we were moved that we would deem it sufficient compliance with the said order if the Department complies with the direction immediately on the disposal of the appeal. Since the appeal is being disposed of today by being dismissed summarily as having no substance, we make it clear that in order to save itself from proceedings for contempt, the Department has time up to 5 p.m. today to send the necessary refund order or cheque for the amount envisaged in the order of the single judge to the advocate for the respondent-assessee. In this view of the matter, the appeal is to stand summarily dismissed. Mr. Dhanuka applies for time. In view of the fact that even the extension of the above period has been granted as a matter of indulgence and we have found no substance in the plea of the Income-tax Department, this application is rejected as not being bona fide or proper.
-
1986 (3) TMI 14 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... senting voice on this subject from any High Court. It is obvious, therefore, that the law as amended in 1971 would govern the instant case. In that view of the matter, it is obvious that the penalty in this case was imposed within two years of the end of the financial year, namely, 1969-70, in which the proceeding for imposition of penalty had been initiated. For the reasons stated above, the references are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal was not correct in holding that the amended provisions of section 275 of the Income-tax Act were not applicable to penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(a) which was pending on April 1, 1971. They were not correct in holding that the order of imposition of penalty was barred by time. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in terms of section 270 of the Income-tax Act.
-
1986 (3) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... s clearly distinguishable. Moreover, there is nothing in the judgment of the said case which would suggest that a payment made after the end of the relevant previous year could be allowed by way of deduction under section 8(9). In the result, the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The question is answered accordingly. It was submitted by Mr. Dwarkadas that, in any event, the amounts claimed by the assessee as deductions as set out in the said question should be allowed as allowable deductions in the assessment for the year 1966-67, that is, for the relevant previous year ending March 31, 1966. We cannot go into this question in this reference. If it is open to the assessee to make such a claim as aforesaid in the proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee will make the claim and the Tribunal shall determine the same in accordance with law. The assessee to pay to the State the costs of this reference.
-
1986 (3) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... use the assessee pays for the manufacture or feeds the expenses incurred in the manufacture and in respect of processing , it will not be correct to state that all the processes resulting in the end product must be carried out by the assessee himself. The court further held that if the assessee had done some process which ultimately has brought about the end product, such an assessee will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption. In accordance with this view, it appears clear to us that the share in the assets of Messrs. Onni Chettiar and Sons will not be entitled to the exemption under section. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act and the assessee will be entitled to the exemption in respect of his share in the assets of Messrs. Ajantha Bleaching and Dyeing Works. Messrs. Ajantha Bleaching and Dyeing Works alone will satisfy the test of clause (xxxii) of section 5(1) of the Act. The reference is answered accordingly, The assessee is not represented. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (3) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Fictitious Purchases, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ion proceedings are not maintainable. It is not in dispute that the assessment order was set aside. But, however, the learned Metropolitan Sessions judge held that the criminal proceedings can continue irrespective of the fact whether the assessment is set aside. It may be stated that this approach of the learned judge is erroneous. When the assessment itself is set aside by the appellate authority, it cannot be said that the assessment still continues in the eye of law and when the assessment order itself is not in existence, the question of maintaining the prosecution does not arise. The Metropolitan Sessions judge also held that the revision is not maintainable. This technical objection need not be considered as the High Court has ample power tinder section 482, Crl.PC, to quash the original order itself. In this view, the proceedings in C.C. No. 94 of 1984, on the file of the Special judge for Economic Offences are quashed. The criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
-
1986 (3) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the ground that the liability for payment of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act arose when the assessee firm took over the assets and liabilities in the transport business that was being conducted by one Balasubramaniam who was inducted as a partner of the firm with effect from April 1, 1970. The liability for payment of tax under the Taxation of Passengers Act was that of Balasubramaniam who was inducted as a partner of the firm in 1970. Merely for the reason that the assets taken over took in also the liabilities charged on these assets, it cannot be said that the discharge of such liabilities will be permissible deduction during the relevant accounting period. Therefore, we answer the questions referred in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1986 (3) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Employee, Perquisite, Salary ... ... ... ... ..... f the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd., but in the capacity of an employee of M/s. Monte Catini Edison, S.P.A. ? 2. If the answer to question No. 11 is in the affirmative, then whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding not to gross up the salaries on tax on tax basis for the purpose of inclusion of the tax as perquisite in the hands of the assessee ? We correct question No. 2 as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding not to gross up the salaries on tax on tax basis for the purpose of inclusion of the tax as perquisites in the hands of the assessee ? The controversies raised in the question are covered by a decision of this court in N. Sciandra v. CIT 1979 118 ITR 675. Following the said decision, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1986 (3) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Connection, Non-resident, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... iness connection between the assessee and the non-resident company under section 43 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and as such the assessee could not be treated as an agent of the non-resident company under section 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in that view cancelling the assessment for the assessment year 1964-65 ? The controversies raised in the said questions are covered by the decision of this court in T.I. and M. Sales Ltd. v. CIT 1985 151 ITR 286, being the case of the same assessee. Following the said decision, we answer question No. (1) in the affirmative and question No. (2) in the negative, both in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Let the description of the assessee be amended as follows Talbot Stead Tube Co. Ltd., Agent T. and M. Sales Ltd., Calcutta. Leave is given to the advocate on record of the assessee to file her vakalatnama within 4 weeks from date. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1986 (3) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Income From Other Sources, Property ... ... ... ... ..... under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that they were assessable under the head Income from other sources ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that depreciation on lifts and transformers was allowable under section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The controversies raised in questions Nos. (1) and (2) are covered by a decision of this court in the case of the same assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 261 of 1976 intituled in CIT v. Model Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd., where the judgment was delivered on March 12, 1981. Following the said judgment, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Question No. (3) is ancillary to question No. (2) and in view of the answer to question No. (2), we answer question No. (3) in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1986 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Reassessment - held that if there are some primary facts from which a reasonable belief could be formed that there was some non-disclosure or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to reopen the assessment - whether there has been such non-disclosure of primary facts which has caused escapement of income in the assessment was basically a question of fact - HC was right in declining to call for a statement of case on a question of law
-
1986 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, in fact, the reassessment to be made pursuant to the notice issued, the income assessed would be more by Re. 1 or less than the income already assessed is not material or relevant for the question of jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 147 - In our opinion, on the materials on record, the Division Bench was, right in dismissing the appeal of the assessee/appellant
-
1986 (3) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether under the provisions of section 10(2)(vi), proviso (b), of the Income-tax Act, the unabsorbed depreciation of the unregistered firm in 1949-50 can be allowed as a deduction in the assessments of the partners of the registered firm in the assessment year 1950-51 - Held, yes
-
1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the burden that lay on him, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises - it cannot be said that any question of law arose in these cases - High Court was, therefore, right in refusing to refer the questions sought for
-
1986 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Allegation that assessee sell shares at lesser value - no evidence that the full consideration received by the assessee in the transfer of the assets has been understated - the proviso proviso to sub-section (2) of section 12B to determine the market value is applicable only where the full value for the consideration has not been stated. There is no evidence, direct or inferential, in these cases that the full consideration had not been stated in the document - revenue's appeal dismissed
-
1986 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
State transport corporation - entire capital has been provided by the state government - Profits are to be utilised for providing amenities to passangers, labour welfare, approved expansion etc. - assessee is held a charitable institution
....
|
