|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 195 of 195 Records
-
1987 (12) TMI 15 - DELHI HIGH COURT
House Tax, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... rence was made to Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Palace Cinema, ILR 1972 1 Delhi 163 FB . This case pertained to recovery of advertisement tax and it was held that article 120 of the old Limitation Act which is a residuary article would cover such a demand. Obviously, the advertisement tax is not a charge on the property. Hence, in the absence of any specific article of limitation applicable to such demand, it was rightly held by a Full Bench of this court that such a demand would be covered by the residuary article. So, in view of the above discussion, I hold that article 62 of the new Limitation Act is applicable to the demand in question and thus the same was not barred by limitation when it was made. Hence, the appellant could not possibly succeed in this appeal. I need not express any view with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the ratio laid down in the case of Balkishan Das 1972 1 RLR (N) 95. I find no merit in this appeal which I hereby dismiss with costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 14 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on M. L. John v. ITO 1983 139 ITR 972 (All), decided with other cases. In the said case, the question was whether receiver appointed for a successor firm could be assessed for the predecessor firm. This question was answered in the negative. This authority is misplaced inasmuch as the question of the receiver being assessed for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1965-66 is not before us. The facts of this case are almost similar if not identical to the facts of the case Sri Krishna v. CIT 1983 142 ITR 618 (A ), wherein it was held that the conduct of the petitioner himself should be seen and if that runs counter to the averments made in the petition, then the relief prayed for would be refused. The conduct of the petitioner in the instant case is such which does not induce us to accept the creditworthiness of his case and, therefore, we decline to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 13 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... where the requirement of law is that application of mind before authorising or sanctioning prosecution is necessary, the prosecution is at liberty to lead evidence at the trial in order to prove that the sanction for the prosecution is a valid one. In the instant case, the prosecution is certainly at liberty to lead evidence during the trial, if considered necessary, to prove that the authority under section 279 of the Act for the prosecution in question is a valid one. The other contentions are without merit and are repelled. The person authorised to file the complaint is the Income-tax Officer and in the instant case, the complaint, in substance, is by him. The fact that the Union of India is shown in the title does not alter its real character and is an irregularity which is inconsequential. In this connection, the decision in Dhian Singh v. Municipal Board, AIR 1970 SC, 318, may usefully be perused. In the result, the revision petition, being without merit, is dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... so posted by Sri Hira Lal Barnwal, who, admittedly, posted the books of the assessee. From a perusal of the Tribunal s order, it appears that the Tribunal reached the conclusion after appraisal of the entire material available on record and drew an inference that both the members were merely benamidars for the Hindu undivided family. From the factual findings, that no investment was made by the two members in the pawning business, that they never actually carried on the business themselves, that the account books did not belong to the two members, that they were posted by Sri Hira Lal Barnwal, who also posted the books of the assessee-Hindu undivided family and that Sri Ashok Kumar was a minor when the business was allegedly started by him, we do not see any prima facie error in the inference drawn by the Tribunal from the facts found thereby and, therefore, no question of law arises from the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... ld be retransferred and the amounts paid should be repaid. In other words, what had been sold had to be resold and the money paid had to be repaid in the event of any one share out of the totality of shares covered by the agreement remaining unsold. This is exactly what the parties intended by the agreement and what they accomplished. This is how the parties understood the transaction at all material times, as is clear from exhibit P-1, and also from their subsequent conduct in filing the returns showing capital gains arising from the sale of the shares in question here. In the circumstances, the Commissioner rightly found that the assessees who are the, appellants here made no mistake in filing the returns and the concerned officer made no mistake in assessing them in respect of the amounts returned. The learned judge has also so found and we are in complete agreement with that conclusion. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Personal Effects ... ... ... ... ..... ce to various occasions implies that these articles were not only capable of being intended for personal or household use , but were normally, commonly or ordinarily intended for such use, and were in fact so used on those occasions. On what evidence the Tribunal came to that conclusion, we do not know. Whether the Tribunal was justified in drawing that inference merely because the assessee s representative stated so, and whether that finding was perverse for want of reasonably acceptable evidence, is a matter on which we cannot express any view in the absence of a specific challenge. In the circumstances, the question must necessarily be answered, as we do, in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this tax referred case. 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 (12) TMI 9 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Firm, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... petitioner to prove by adducing evidence, either oral or documentary, that the persons who received the notices were the authorised agents of the opposite parties. This being the position, the finding of the learned subordinate judge to the effect that there was no service of notices of demand on the opposite parties cannot be displaced by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the court under section II 5 of the Code. For the reasons stated above, the civil revision shall succeed in part. The petitioner shall be entitled to recover the sums of Rs. 77,832.25 for the assessment year 1962-63 and Rs. 1,973 for the assessment year 1963-64 as modified in appeal as arrears of income-tax dues which should be paid out of the deposit of decretal dues in the court of the learned subordinate judge. In the absence of proper service of notices of demand, the balance amount of arrears of income-tax dues cannot be recovered from out of the said deposit. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 8 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Expenditure Incurred, In Part, Rectification Of Mistakes, Rectification Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... not incurred during any year or years as provided under the said provision. The amount so set apart shall be treated as income of the year succeeding the fifth year, if it is not spent for the purpose for 5 years or is spent for any other purpose. It is not in dispute that the assessee in these cases did exercise the option in writing. The assessment orders also disclose that the expenses incurred under this head had been allowed in the original assessment orders. Therefore, no reserve need be created by the assessee for claiming the expenditure if it is actually incurred and spent during the year. Hence, there was no justifiable reason for the respondent to rectify the assessment orders in question under this head and it was not a case of an error apparent on the record but was a case of error of understanding by the respondent. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed in part and the orders of rectification except as regards depreciation on power tiller are set aside.
-
1987 (12) TMI 7 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ompany for a limited period, the assessee did not acquire any asset or advantage of an enduring nature for the benefit of its business and, therefore, the expenditure incurred was revenue expenditure. He also relied on a Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT 1978 114 ITR 443, in which it was held that imparting know-how under an agreement for technical collaboration did not result in parting with an asset and, therefore, payment for acquisition of such know-how was revenue expenditure. In our opinion, it is unnecessary to rely upon the aforesaid decisions for this case, for, the only ground on which the deduction was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer was that production had not commenced during the previous year. Once it is held that the new units were only a continuation of the existing business, the said objection no longer subsists. In the result, we answer the second question also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1987 (12) TMI 6 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... was urged before the Commissioner (Appeals). It was only before the Tribunal that the assessee made a somersault and raised a new plea that it is not liable to be taxed, relying on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court. We may refer to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. CIT 1983 139 ITR 865, of the Bombay High Court in Metal Rolling Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1983 142 ITR 170, and of the Kerala High Court in O. K. Industries v. CIT 1987 163 ITR 51. All the aforesaid decisions support the view we have taken that the cash realised by a businessman on the sale of import entitlements constituted income from business and not realisation of capital resulting in capital gain. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee subject to the modification that the sum assessable shall be Rs. 5,15,140 and not Rs. 11,98,787 as specified in the question. No costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Trusts, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... deration, the trustee was not holding the trust fund on behalf of the beneficiaries who are known and whose shares in the trust fund are also determinate. The provisions of section 21(4) are clearly applicable and the trustee will have to be assessed on the entire value of the trust fund in the status of an individual . Although, unfortunately, the Wealthtax Officer did not go into all these aspects when he was completing the assessment (because they were not raised before him at that stage), there is no error in the assessments made by him in these cases. We, accordingly, uphold the assessments made by the Wealth-tax Officer subject to any relief in the quantum granted either by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The question referred for our consideration in each one of the references is, accordingly, answered in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 117 ITR was relied upon. This court also, in the decision in Krishna Murthy v. CIT 1985 152 ITR 163, has taken a similar view in respect of incentive bonus while considering the applicability of section 40A of the Income-tax Act. The Allahabad High Court has also in the decision reported in CIT v. Hind Lamps Ltd. 1980 122 ITR 451, taken a similar view about incentive bonus being a part of salary. We are unable to say that the incentive bonus received by the petitioner is nothing else but what an employee has received from the employer. The definition of wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, also indicates that bonus is included in the said definition. Having regard to the language of section 17 of the income-tax Act and the circumstance that the petitioner has received the said amount as incentive bonus while in employment, we do not consider that the contention of the petitioner has any merits. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Tax collected without the authority of law. Indeed, the appellant had to pay the tax in view of the notices which were without jurisdiction - assessment was made was without jurisdiction. In the premises, it is manifest that the respondents had no authority to retain the money collected without the authority of law and as such the money was liable to be refunded - in an application under article 226 of the Constitution, the court should have directed refund.
-
1987 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Interest on the refund of tax - assessments were made under the Indian Income-tax Act - since 1922 did not provide for interest, assessee cannot claim for interest
-
1987 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, the income derived by the assessee-company by way of lease rent from the letting out of its assets during the years ended 31-12-1959, 31-12-1960, 31-12-1961 and 31-12-1962, is assessable to tax under the head 'Profits and gains of business' or under the head 'Income from other sources'
....
|
