Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 232 of 232 Records
-
1986 (4) TMI 12
... ... ... ... ..... year but the same would not affect the actual position. The Supreme Court held in E. D. Sassoon and Company Ltd. s case 1954 26 ITR 27, that the accrual of an income would not depend on the accounts of the assessee. Whatever be the position of the accounts, the profits and gains as ascertained would have to be referred back to the chargeable accounting period during which such profits or gains actually accrued or arose and the assessee would be liable to tax in respect of the same during the correct and proper chargeable accounting year. On the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, we also accept the finding of the Tribunal that, in any event, no right to receive the amount paid by the U.K. company accrued to the assessee during the relevant accounting year. We answer the question in Income-tax Reference No. 155 of 1982 also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. RAY J.-I agree.
-
1986 (4) TMI 11
... ... ... ... ..... favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal was not correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 80,688 representing sales tax could not be treated as the assessee s income. Question No. (2), as a whole, must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal was not justified in bifurcating the expenditure on royalties into 2/3rds revenue expenditure and 1/3rd capital expenditure. The entire sum of Rs. 3,09,991 was allowable as revenue expenditure. Question No. (3) we refuse to answer, in view of the concession of Mr. Dinesh Vyas that the order of the Income-tax Officer was acceptable to the assessee. The references are thus disposed of. Since the references have been decided partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. NAZIR AHMAD J.-I agree.
-
1986 (4) TMI 10
Income, Pranamis ... ... ... ... ..... to this court in Taxation Cases Nos. 255 to 262 of 1976 (CIT v. Sarbamangala Devi/Dr. P. R. Chakravarty 1987 163 ITR 898) in which both the assessees cases were made analogous to each other and, therefore, a common judgment in respect of both of them was delivered by this court on March 20, 1986. Since, however, the instant cases have not been made analogous, therefore, two judgments and orders shall have to be differently recorded as matter of mere formality. Therefore, for the reasons given in Taxation Cases Nos. 255 to 262 of 1976 CIT v. Sarbamangala Devi/Dr. P. R. Chakravarty 1987 163 ITR 898 (Pat) , we hold that the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the receipts of pranamis were casual and non-recurring and exempt under section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
1986 (4) TMI 9
... ... ... ... ..... on March 20, 1986 (CIT v. Sarbamangala Devi/Dr. P. R. Chakravarty 1987 163 ITR 898), we hold that the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the receipts of pranamis were casual and non-recurring and exempt under section 10(3)of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is thus answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
1986 (4) TMI 8
... ... ... ... ..... t may be stated that the other High Courts have taken into consideration the expression Authority in a general way. A particular expression may assume a different meaning in a particular context. To us, it appears that when any body is constituted under any law with the object of marketing of commodities, then that body would be an authority and such an authority will be covered by section 10(29). That body being a statutory corporation exercising the statutory powers and functions would be an authority entitled to claim exemption on income from letting of godowns and/or warehouses. We accordingly answer the two questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee corporation is an authority constituted under the Warehousing Corporations Act for the marketing of commodities and its income from letting out godowns is exempt from tax under section 10(29) of the Act. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1986 (4) TMI 7
Assessment, Limitation, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... tion, all the facts were produced before the assessing officer. The Tribunal held that it is undoubtedly true that the assessee who has put forward and disclosed the whole amount cannot be placed in a worse position than the assessee who has filed a lame explanation and escaped penal consequences. That apart, the Income-tax Officer has to establish that the amount added was the income for the relevant year. In any event, the assessee made a disclosure long before the assessment was taken up and completed. It will appear from the order sheet that it was only on July 21, 1969, that the Income-tax Officer initiated the proceeding by issuing a notice under section 142(1). For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee had concealed its income. In that view of the matter, the second question also is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1986 (4) TMI 6
... ... ... ... ..... I further agree with the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother Uday Sinha J. that, in the instant case, the assessee failed to discharge the onus placed upon him of showing that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part. I further agree with the view of my learned brother Uday Sinha J. that even by the standard set down in the case of Anwar Ali 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC), the Revenue had, in the instant case, established that there had been concealment of income by the assessee and for the reasons given in my judgment, I do not agree with the view taken by my learned brother Nazir Ahmad J. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 15,000 imposed upon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. I, therefore, answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 500 payable by the assessee.
-
1986 (4) TMI 5
Firm, Partners ... ... ... ... ..... under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. However, it will have to be examined whether the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act are the same as the corresponding provisions in the Wealth-tax Act or there is any difference therein which raises a question of law for our decision. Consequently, this application is allowed. We direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer to this court for decision the following question of law, viz. Whether a partner is entitled to exemption under section 80L of the Income-tax Act in respect of interest earned by the firm on bank deposits held in its name ? No order as to costs.
-
1986 (4) TMI 4
Business Expenditure, Collaboration Agreement ... ... ... ... ..... this court in the case of the same assessee. The said decision is CIT v. Bengal Potteries Ltd. 1980 126 ITR 442. By the said judgment, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for taking additional evidence on the issues raised and for disposal of the appeal under section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Following the said decision, we remand this matter also to the Tribunal for being disposed of under section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act after taking additional evidence relevant to the dispute as laid down in the said decision and giving a reasonable opportunity to both the parties of being heard. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1986 (4) TMI 3
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Goodwill ... ... ... ... ..... Ahmad J., both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal have proceeded on the basis that, in the instant case, goodwill was self-generated by the assessee and the question as to the correctness of that finding is not before this court. Under these circumstances, agreeing with Nazir Ahmad J., I am of the opinion that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the consideration for goodwill amounting to Rs. 71,918 received by the assessee from the vendee was not liable to be taxed as capital gains under section 45 of the Act. ORDER OF THE COURT In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the answer to the question referred to this court by the Tribunal is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Let a copy of this order be forwarded by the office of this court to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench B , Patna.
-
1986 (4) TMI 2
Penalty imposed against the petitioner by the Wealth-tax Officer at the rate of I per cent. of the total wealth assessed for every month of default and out of seven months' default, the penalty imposed was for four months equal to Rs. 6,784 - held that imposition of penalty does not violate fundamental rights - hence rate of penalty is constitutionally valid
-
1986 (4) TMI 1
Amounts received by the assessee as an office bearer of religious faith - since the assessee has used the same for his personal use and for his business, it is taxable - It is also not to be treated as casual income - Whether the Tribunal was right in finding that the amount of Rs. 5,85,637 are receipts of a casual and non-recurring nature not arising from business or the exercise of a profession or occupation within the meaning of section 10(3) - Held, no
....
|