|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 158 of 158 Records
-
1986 (5) TMI 18 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Application For Reference, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... to be referred is certainly a question of law. The Tribunal, however, declined to refer it on the ground that the same stands concluded by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J. Hemchander and Company. On the ground stated, the Tribunal was not justified in declining the reference sought for. Consequently, this petition is allowed and a mandamus issued to the Tribunal to refer the above-noted question together with the statement of the case for the opinion of this court.
-
1986 (5) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Settlement Commission ... ... ... ... ..... nce rejected. It is not necessary to go into the question decided by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate because his order rejecting the stay application can be justified also in view of the ground on which such stay application is required to be rejected, namely, mere making of an application to the Settlement Commission under section 245H does not require that the prosecution be stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that whether to grant stay of the prosecution or not is in the discretion of the learned Magistrate and if the learned Magistrate has not exercised his discretion in accordance with the principles of law, the matter should be remanded. In view of the clear position of law and in view of the fact that until immunity is granted the criminal prosecution need not be stayed, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter and multiplying the hearings on the same question. Hence both these criminal revision applications are rejected.
-
1986 (5) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Intercorporate Dividends, Loss, Set Off, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... e to consider the same. The law is settled that the gross total income and also the dividend income of the assessee have to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act without making any deduction under section 80M contained in Chapter VI of the Act. It is not the case of the assessee that the dividend income has not been so computed. Therefore, the dividend as computed has to be taken into account in computing the gross total income of the assessee and only thereafter the question of relief under section 80M would have to be considered. In the instant case, the gross total income having been computed to be a loss, no further relief is available to the assessee under section 80M. This has been laid down by this court in National Industries Ltd. s case 1978 113 ITR 252. For the reasons given above, we answer the question referred in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. G. N. RAY J.-I agree.
-
1986 (5) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Present Accrued Liability ... ... ... ... ..... is the amount of profits and gains. The word profits , I think, is to be understood in its natural and proper sense-in sense which no commercial man would misunderstand. But when once an individual or a company has in that proper sense ascertained what are the profits of his business or his trade, the destination of those profits, or the charge which has been made on those profits by previous agreement or otherwise is perfectly immaterial. This case was cited by Bhagwati J. with approval in the case of E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1954 26 ITR 27 (SC) at page 70. Bhagwati J. observed It appears to me that these passages constitute a clear recognition of the principle that when once income accrues to a person, an assignment operative in respect thereof does not affect his taxability for that income. In my judgment, the question referred by the Tribunal must be answered in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1986 (5) TMI 14 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... resolved by the Full Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Nathulal Agarwala and Sons 1985 153 ITR 292, there remains no doubt for a minute that the Tribunal committed a serious error of law in placing reliance upon the ratio decided in the case of Shanker Lal Kejriwal v. CIT 1964 54 ITR 541 (Pat). The assessment year in question being subsequent to the amendment brought in section 271(1)(c) on April 1, 1964, I hold the Tribunal wrongly placed the onus upon the Department. Having held as above, the answer to the question of law for our decision is in the negative and I hold that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act were not attracted. Having held as such, I further hold that the penalty was wrongly deleted. Hearing fee Rs. 250. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, in terms of section 260(1) of the Act. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1986 (5) TMI 13 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Appeal And Revision, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... imitation. This fear is also not otherwise well founded. Section 65 of the Act expressly extends the application of the Indian Limitation Act to proceedings therein. Sub-section (2) in term provides as under Except as declared in sub-section (1), or as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, shall apply to all proceedings under this Act as if a certificate filed hereunder were a decree of a civil court. In the light of the above, it would be plain that section 5 of the Limitation Act would be equally attracted and it would have been open for the petitioners to seek condonation of delay, inter alia, on the ground of having bona fide prosecuted a remedy elsewhere. However, to avoid the least possibility of prejudice on this score, we direct that if, so advised, the petitioners resort to the remedies available to them within one month from today and no technical pleas of limitation would be raised against them. R. N. PRASAD J.-I agree.
-
1986 (5) TMI 12 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... e Supreme Court in CIT v. Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory 1966 60 ITR 95 (SC), that partners of an unregistered firm might be assessed individually or they might be assessed collectively in the status of an unregistered firm. The Income-tax Officer, however, could not seek to assess the same income twice, once in the hands of the partners and again in the hands of the unregistered firm. These cases are clearly distinguishable because they were not cases of not granting registration to the firm. They were against the orders of assessment. However, in this case, no appeal was made against the order of assessment. The challenge was only about non-registration of the firm. As such, there is no reference against the order of assessment. Therefore, whether Parmeshwaridevi was rightly assessed or not is not the subject-matter of the present reference. We, therefore, refuse to answer the questions as no question of law arises. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
1986 (5) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... te Tribunal dated October 15, 1985, is beyond the scope of sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act. He submits that it is not within the scope of rectification to recall the order whole hog. Mr. Mehta contested the position. From a bare reading of sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act, it appears that under the garb of rectification, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cannot exercise the power of review and recall the order whole hog. There are conflicting judgments of various High Courts on this subject. Without going into the various authorities which have been cited before me, I only need say that a bare reading of subsection (2) of section 254 shows that it does not empower the Tribunal to review its own order and recall its earlier order. Thus, in the result, I allow this writ petition and set aside the order dated October 15, 1985 (annexure-3), and remand the case to the Tribunal to decide the rectification application in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
-
1986 (5) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty, with the result that the entire income that he gets as his share from the firm is assessed in the hands of the entity which he represents, then that share income is outside the purview of section 64. None the less, the share income of the spouse or the minor children from that firm is liable to be included while computing the total income of such individual in his assessment in the status of an individual. This matter has been made clear by amending section 64 by the Amending Act of 1975. The cases cited by the assessee before the Tribunal and the other cases, i.e., CIT v. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal 1971 82 ITR 628 (SC), Y. L. Agarwalla v. CIT 1978 114 ITR 471 (SC), Arunachalam v. CIT 1985 151 ITR 172 (Kar) and CIT v. S.K. Thakkar 1985 154 ITR 303 (Bom) are clearly distinguishable because those cases were in respect of assessment of Hindu undivided families. Therefore, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
1986 (5) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accrual, Income ... ... ... ... ..... t determines the liability to pay such additional compensation and determines the quantum of such compensation. There is one other aspect of the matter. If the accrual of income depends on the method of accounting followed by the assessee, in that event, in this case, the assessee having not maintained any accounts at all, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to proceed on the footing that the assessment should be made on the cash system of accounting. Therefore, the entire amount of interest has to be assessed as and when received and the question of relating it back to the date of dispossession or its assessment on year to year basis cannot arise. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not right in holding that only proportionate interest referable to the assessment year is assessable on accrual basis. The question, therefore, is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1986 (5) TMI 8 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... y because some proceeding which may have some bearing on it is pending elsewhere. In one case, I have taken a view that the complaint should be allowed to proceed till the end and if it reaches the stage of hearing the arguments and till then the appeal against the assessment order is not decided and a request is made by the accused petitioners before the criminal court to stay the further proceedings, the court will consider it judicially on the facts of the case in accordance with the law. But in my opinion, it cannot be said that there is any bar to initiation of proceedings under section 276C merely because regular assessment orders have not been made or are the subject of appeal. Consequently, all the abovenumbered revision petitions are dismissed. Any observation on merits, if made, are limited to these reasons. No observation made herein Will have any effect either way on the complaints and are confined only for disposal of the revision petitions. Petitions dismissed.
-
1986 (5) TMI 7 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... assets. He, therefore, contends that no benefit under section 46(2) of the Act was available to the assessee. It was pointed out that the act of the liquidator in distributing the assets of the company which had gone into voluntary liquidation did not result in the creation of a new right. It merely entailed recognition of the legal rights which were in existence prior to the distribution. The assessee receives that money in satisfaction of the right which belonged to him by virtue of his holding the shares and not by operation of any transaction which amounts to sale, exchange, relinquishment or transfer. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of both the parties. We are of the view that prima facie the above referred two questions of law do arise from the order of the Tribunal for the consideration of this court. The Tribunal is asked to draw up a statement of the case and refer the same to this court for its consideration. Application allowed.
-
1986 (5) TMI 6 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Debt Due, Deduction, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... sing on his death for the levy of estate duty. In the present case, when the estate of the deceased was neither encumbered to this extent nor was it liable to be reduced on account of the deduction claimed by the accountable person, it would be extremely unreasonable to hold that this amount was even then a liability of the deceased so as to permit its deduction as a debt from his estate. We have not been shown any provision in the statute which requires taking a view different from this ordinary and logical view. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the decisions cited at the bar since none of them is directly on the point and we prefer to base our decision on this common sense view contrary to which nothing has been shown from the statute. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Controller and against the accountable person as under The Tribunal was not justified in allowing deduction of Rs. 1,27,747 as a debt under section 44 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
-
1986 (5) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee had provided for payment of bonus, the liability under the statute, viz., the Payment of Bonus Act, stood discharged. If the concerned employees did not claim such bonus as provided, even after lapse of a substantial period, it cannot be held that the liability of the employer would continue. By the said judgment, the Tribunal has been directed to investigate whether the unclaimed bonus represents the excess of the requirement to be provided for payment of such bonus and why bonus had not been claimed by the employees in the past years. The Tribunal has been directed to dispose of the case in the light of the principles laid down in the judgment. The Tribunal has been given liberty to take additional evidence while disposing of the case under section 260 of the Act. For the above reasons, we are of the view that this is a case not fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. The application is rejected. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1986 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Gratuity - Revenue urged that the provisions of section 40A(7)(b)(ii), have not been satisfied and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the deduction of the gratuity amount - provisions of section 40A(7)(b)(ii) have been recently construed by this court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT - in view of said decision, High Court should examine whether those provisions have been complied with in the present case having regard to what has been laid down in that case
-
1986 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Orders levying interest under sub-section (8) of section 139 and under section 215 are not appealable under section 246 - claim for waiver can not be made, without making of first before the Income-Tax Officer because interest is not in the nature of penalty orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax rejecting the revision petitions, is affirmed
-
1986 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Cash Credits - Tribunal's failure to consider identity and credit worthiness of creditors - failure of the Tribunal to consider the materials gathered by the ITO - Whether a question of law referable to the High Court arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in this case - question of law arise - held that High Court was in error in not directing a reference on the impugned questions to the High Court under section 256(2)
-
1986 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the reopening of the assessments of the assessee under section 147(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid - Held, no because there is no failure on the part of assessee to disclose full and true facts
....
|
