|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 315 of 315 Records
-
1987 (1) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business, Capital Gains, Income ... ... ... ... ..... ourt in the most recent case of Modi Electric Supply Co. v. CIT 1980 126 ITR 403 held that upon compulsory purchase under the Electricity Act of the assessee s undertaking supplying electricity, there had been a sale within the meaning of section 41(2), regardless of the fact that there was no sale deed executed on the date upon which the take-over bad been effected. Having regard to the judgment in Fazilka Electric Supply Co. Ltd. s case 1962 46 ITR 127 (SC) and the judgments of the Punjab High Court to which we have adverted, we are unable to take a view that would answer the questions posed to us in favour of the assessee. In the result, the first question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue the second question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue the third question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and the fourth question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bail, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... f the intervening circumstances mentioned above and narrated above, it would be inexpedient to cancel the bail and send the accused to jail, now. Consequently, except laying down the limited scope of the law on the subject in such cases in the aforesaid paragraphs, I feel that the powers under section 482, which are to be used sparingly only when there has been any abuse of the process of the court primarily should not be invoked now as, if it is done in the absence of filing of challan and prosecution, it is tantamount to persecution rather than prosecution which should always be avoided by judicial courts, as they cannot become a party to such litigation, but their duty is to adjudicate on the rights of the parties, treating both of them at par, in the eye of law. Consequently, both the applications under section 482 are rejected with the above observations and pointing out the correct law, being jail and not bail in such serious economic, anti-social, white-collar crimes.
-
1987 (1) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... us purposes and were not actually applied as such It seems to us that the conclusion is absolutely right. We come now to the frame of questions Nos. (1) and (2). They state that the sums of Rs. 55,000 and Rs. 4,00,000 were received by the assessee towards its corpus. It is not the finding of the Tribunal that these sums were received by the assessee towards its corpus and this is agreed to between counsel before us. Accordingly, we reframe questions Nos. (1) and (2) so as to exclude the words towards its corpus in each. In the result, we answer question No. (1) in the affirmative and against the assessee, question No. (2) in the affirmative and against the assessee, question No. (3) in the negative and against the assessee and question No. (4) in the negative and against the assessee. As far as question No. (5) is concerned, it does not appear to arise from the order of the Tribunal and is, therefore, not pressed. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business, Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Exemption For Agricultural Land ... ... ... ... ..... into. On the date on which the Ajni land was conveyed by the assessee to the Brihan Society, its character or nature was, therefore, not agricultural. It was not entitled to the exemption given to agricultural land, an exemption given, as the Supreme Court said in the case noted above, to encourage cultivation or actual utilisation of land for agricultural purposes . Mr. Manohar submitted, lastly, that the taxing authorities had for other purposes treated the Ajni land as agricultural land. So far as the answer to the fourth question is concerned, this is of no relevance. The answer to the fourth question must, accordingly, be in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the result, questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 4 is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. An answer was not sought to the question raised on behalf of the assessee and it is, accordingly, not answered. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... iability to be abated is to be taken as Rs. 2,55,256/X x Rs. 1,57,641. We direct accordingly. This direction was, in our view, warranted by the proviso to section 46(1). See the decision of the Madras High Court in CED v. Smt. S. T. B. Ameen Khaleeli 1983 143 ITR 679. See also the principle stated in Mc Dougal s Trustees v. IRC 1952 31 Annotated Tax Cases 153 (C Sess) 1983 143 ITR 698 on the basis of section 31 of the Finance Act, 1939 (U.K.), corresponding to section 46(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. In the circumstances, we answer question No. (1) in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We answer question No. (2) in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (1) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... derstated in the accounts. So the position is this. Certain sales had been purchased and properly accounted for. They were not brought into the closing stock. They were sold subsequently. The sale proceeds have been included in the book. From these facts it would be, clear that for the subsequent assessment year of 1975-76 the assessee s accounts showed the full sale value as the gross profit itself and the assessee had suffered tax thereon ........ The Tribunal, determining the relevant questions of fact, held that no additions were liable to be made. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of that finding. In the circumstances, we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (1) TMI 9 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... r view, rightly granted in respect of such expenditure. In the circumstances, question No. 6 is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We have already answered questions Nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that the amounts in question represented capital expenditure necessitated by reason of devaluation and currency fluctuation. For the same reason, we must necessarily hold that the sum of Rs. 15,13,004, being excess liability towards payment of interest on dollar loans, etc., obtained for the acquisition of capital assets, is attracted by section 43A of the Income-tax Act 1961. Accordingly, we answer question No. 7 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (1) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... luous as recourse to section 142(2A) of the Act serves the purpose. Section 142(2A) enables the assessing authority to direct the accounts to be audited in the event of complexity of the accounts. This power can be exercised in respect of all assessees. The stipulation of compulsory audit is evidently conceived with the twin purposes of having vigilance of the accounts of the assessees in higher income brackets to detect evasion if any and lubricating expeditious assessment. The power under section 142(2A) can be invoked when the assessing authority finds that the accounts are complicated and it must be stated that in view of section 44AB, the recourse to section 142(2A) is confined to assessees having turnover or transactions below Rs. 40 lakhs or gross professional receipts below Rs. 10 lakhs. The overlapping in certain situations does not render the provision invalid or superfluous and the contention is untenable. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 7 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... der section 142(2A) and a default thereunder as a condition for a best judgment assessment totally nugatory. This contention is not correct. For instance, in a case where a best judgment assessment is completed only for the failure to comply with the direction under section 142(2A), there is no ground on which the assessee can invoke the provisions of section 146. In the present case and in other cases where an assessment is completed under section 144 for the defaults mentioned in section 146, there is no reason why an assessee should not be permitted to resort to section 146 provided he is able to satisfy the Income-tax Officer that the defaults referred to under section 146 were due to reasonable cause. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal flows from the clear language of the section and that the failure to mention section 142(2A) in section 146 cannot redound to the advantage of the Revenue. We, therefore, dismiss this petition. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... objects and thus the deed of rectification dated January 31, 1969, deleting the objectionable objects could not be said to be valid in law. The Division Bench further held that though the court under section 92, Civil Procedure Code, can give a direction which is necessary for the administration of any trust, it cannot in exercise of that power alter the objects of the trust. The court, therefore, confirmed the view of the Tribunal that the assessee-trust was not eligible for exemption for the assessment year 1976-77. In the instant references, we are concerned with the wealth-tax assessments for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74 and with the income-tax assessments for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80. The questions raised having been concluded by the decision of the court referred to above, there is no case for asking the Tribunal to forward a statement of the case with regard to the questions raised. The petitions are, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ction of Rs. 9,680, being provision made for gratuity payable to its employees ? Counsel for the Revenue fairly concedes that, in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation 1983 141 ITR 40 for the earlier assessment year 1971-72, questions Nos. 1 and 2 have to be answered in favour of the assessee. In so far as question No. 3 is concerned, learned counsel for the Revenue also fairly concedes that that question has also to be answered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Andhra Prabha (P.) Ltd. 1980 123 ITR 760, which view is now confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision in CIT v. Andhra Prabha (P.) Ltd. 1986 158 ITR 416. Accordingly, the three questions are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, Company ... ... ... ... ..... ssee was not a partner in that firm in his individual capacity but was only representing the Hindu undivided family headed by him ? Both learned counsel for the Revenue and the assessee agree that the question referred has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue having regard to the decision in CIT v. S. Balasubramaniam 1984 147 ITR 732 (Mad). Accordingly, the question referred is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue no order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Criminal Conspiracy, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... mplainant and the witnesses if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties has made the complaint. Therefore, I see no merit in these two points. In view of my findings in paragraph No. 26, the complaint with reference to the proceedings concerning the main offences mentioned in paragraphs 8, 10(3), 11(1) to (3) and 12(2) of the complaint which are alleged to have taken place at Trivandrum and Bombay is quashed. To make the point clear, even though the prosecution cannot prove the main offences that were alleged to have taken place at Trivandrum and Bombay, it is open to the prosecution to lead evidence with reference to any conspiracy that might have taken place to commit such offences. Likewise, in view of my findings in paragraph No. 27, I quash the proceedings concerning the offences mentioned in the complaint falling under section 195(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code. In the result, the petitions are allowed in part as stated above.
-
1987 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Karta makes gift to his son by book entry - Tribunal held that there was a valid gift and the amount was liable to be excluded from the wealth of the Hindu undivided family - There is no evidence of acceptance of gift and it was never utilised for sons benefit - therefore gift is invalid - hence it is to be included in net wealth and interest credited is not deductible
-
1987 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
If the returned income is less than assessed income, the presumption is raised against the assessee that the assessee is guilty of fraud as a result of which he has concealed the income but this presumption can be rebutted. The rebuttal must be on materials relevant - It is for the fact-finding body to judge the relevancy of the materials - If such a fact-finding body, comes to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the onus; it becomes a conclusion of fact. No question of law arises.
....
|
