Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 278 of 278 Records
-
1987 (4) TMI 18
... ... ... ... ..... in truth and in reality only a single transaction, and hence the income received by the assessee is only Rs. 21,401, and nothing more. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to hold that the said finding is not justified or warranted. Once that finding is accepted as correct, there is no scope for applying section 57(iii). The Tribunal has also referred to the real income theory which again do not think it is necessary to go into or pronounce upon. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to deal with the several decisions by Iearned standing counsel rendered with reference to section 57(iii). Once we accept the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal as correct, and when practically no question of law arises as stated above, we see no reasons to disturb the said finding of fact. Accordingly, the question which his been reframed by us above, is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1987 (4) TMI 17
... ... ... ... ..... yer (a) is concerned is not sustained and, in our opinion, rule must be issued but restricted to prayer (a) of the writ petition. However, we make it clear that there is no warrant for staying the operation of any circular as sought for in prayer (d). The question of issuing any orders in terms of prayer (e) does not and cannot arise. Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Mr. Dhanuka on behalf of respondent No. 1 who is the only respondent concerned with prayer (a), waives service. The return is to be filed on or before June 8, 1987. After the return is filed, papers to be placed before the Hon ble Chief justice under rule 28 of the Rules of the High Court of judicature at Bombay (Original Side) Rules, 1988, to consider whether the writ petition should be straightaway placed for consideration by a Bench instead of a single judge. Since there is partial success and partial failure in the appeal, the parties are directed to bear their own costs of the appeal.
-
1987 (4) TMI 16
... ... ... ... ..... 66-67 (A.Y. 1964-65) and 918 (Bom.) of 1967-68 (A.Y. 1966-67)), showed that this point had been urged on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal. We will assume that this point was urged before the Tribunal. We, however, do not find the point referred to us. The only point in the question that is referred is whether the Wealth-tax Officer was competent to rectify the assessment of the assessee to bring to tax the value of jewellery in the light of the retrospective effect given to the amendment to section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. We cannot, therefore, consider the point urged by Mr. Dalvi before us. The question has to be answered, having regard to the Supreme Court judgment referred to above, in favour of the Revenue. In applying the provisions of section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal shall, of course, consider whether the ornaments belonging to the assessee fall within the meaning of the word jewellery therein. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (4) TMI 15
Exceptions To Inclusion In Net Wealth, Transfer To Spouse ... ... ... ... ..... obiter and are not really necessary for the purpose of the decision of that case. Further, the observation that the words for any assessment year commencing after the 31 st March, 1964 are referable to assessment years under the Wealth-tax Act, is unsustainable on a plain reading of the proviso. For all the above reasons, we think that the said decision cannot be said to lay down a principle contrary to what we have stated above or contrary to what the other High Courts said in the decisions referred to above. Coming back to the facts before us, in this case, the gift was made on March 31, 1967, which means that it was either chargeable to gift-tax or was not chargeable to gift-tax under section 5 of the Gift-tax Act during the assessment year 1967-68 which falls within the period specified in the proviso. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (4) TMI 14
... ... ... ... ..... nces of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in admitting the fresh ground of appeal purporting to be an additional ground filed by the assessee claiming deduction of Rs. 2,24,748 in respect of expenses on food, refreshment, etc. ? The income-tax case is disposed of . There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (4) TMI 13
... ... ... ... ..... s a continuation of the first petition, then we are afraid there is no power in the Commissioner to extend the time or to treat such a petition as within time. Apart from the above, the finding of the Commissioner is that the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure. What he had filed on February 23, 1985, was only part of the total disclosure made, vide the second petition dated January 20, 1986. The Commissioner has also recorded that the second petition made by the assessee in his individual capacity surrendering an additional amount of Rs. 1,53,028 was not out of the assessee s volition or before detection by the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner observed that the circumstances showed that it was under compulsive circumstances that the assessee had to make the additional offer for assessment in his individual capacity. In view of the above, we do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned order. The writ petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 12
Arrest And Detention For Recovery Of Tax, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... to be arrived at on the materials before them. It is not possible for this court to reappreciate the said evidence and material as if it were sitting in appeal over the decision in exhibit P-7. I have just narrated the salient features in the case, which according to me, substantiate the findings arrived at by the respondents so that there is really no scope for any other conclusion being possible on the materials on record. The orders, exhibits P-4 and P-7, are, therefore, sustainable in law and are not liable to be interfered with in these proceedings. The petitioner also challenges exhibit P-10. That is only an order by which a property has been ordered to be sold. I do not find any illegality in the same. If the petitioner has got any objections relating to exhibit P-10 on the merits, it is up to him to raise those points in the proceedings before the authorities. The original petition is without substance. It is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
-
1987 (4) TMI 11
Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment Order, Limitation, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... fiscal statutes must be interpreted for the benefit of the subject rather than the State. Furthermore, fiscal statutes must be construed strictly, and the court would not be justified in straining the language and reading something into it in order to find and spell out a power not expressly conferred thereunder on the authority. The expression used in section 36(1) is assessment order and it is clear and unequivocal and the court cannot expand it to include within it an order of rectification. Admittedly, on the date of the impugned order, the period prescribed, for rectifying the assessment order had lapsed. Even if it is a case of ambiguity, it has got to be resolved only in favour of the subject. If so done, I have to hold that the respondent had acted incompetently and without jurisdiction in invoking the powers under section 36(1) of the Act to further rectify the order passed on February 25, 1980. In this view, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 10
Application For Reference, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... f Income-tax, the petitioner. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished for the long time taken from January 20, 1987, up to February 17, 1987, to prepare the application. Although the Commissioner duly signed and returned the petition with some suggestions on February 19, 1987, there is no explanation why the notice of motion was taken out on March 4. We, however, find that the Commissioner, the petitioner, had no hand in the matter and was not at fault and as such the application should be allowed. It is well-settled that a litigant should not suffer for the laches on the part of his lawyers. Accordingly, this application is allowed. We, however, are constrained to observe that in future the Ministry of Law and the lawyers concerned should be more prompt and diligent There will be an order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. The petitioner, however, Will pay the costs of this application assessed at 5 G.Ms. to the respondent. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1987 (4) TMI 9
Assessee-respondent who is now dead derived income from securities, dividends, directors' fee, commission and trading in stock - salary payable to the assessee, dividend income from two companies, value of perquisites enjoyed by the assessee - held that Perquisites were taxable only if they were convertible into money value - salary not accrues when it is discontinued on basis of oral agreement - deemed dividend is taxable
-
1987 (4) TMI 8
Action taken by the Assistant Director of Inspection of the Income-tax Dept. in connection with what was said to be a proceeding under the Income-tax Act, in the case of Aruna Estate Limited by issuing summons under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to compel attendance before him - held that Prior to the insertion of sub-s. (1A) in s. 131, ADI had no such powers to insist on personal attendance to give evidence - Since the amendment was way back in 1975, the issue is purely academic
-
1987 (4) TMI 7
Assessee, fraction owner of an asset - Whether depreciation is allowable on the 1/6th share in S. B. Sugar Mills, Bijnore, which the assessee had acquired from Seth Shiv Prasad - admissibility of a claim of expenditure being payment of interest on a loan taken for purchase of shares - assessee is not entitled to set off his business loss and against the lease money received
-
1987 (4) TMI 6
Income From Other Sources - whether, payment of interest was not an admissible deduction under section 57(iii) - unless the loan is incurred for meeting the liability connected with the sources itself, it would ordinarily be difficult to entertain the claims for deduction.
-
1987 (4) TMI 5
Service of reassessment notice beyond the period of limitation - notice issued in prescribed period of limitation - validity of assessment - Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Income-tax Officer to proceed to reassess
-
1987 (4) TMI 4
Sale of investment - Capital Loss - section 24(3) - such loss can be carried forward and set off against capital gains in subsequent year
-
1987 (4) TMI 3
Non-disclosure of income received by his wife from assets transferred to her - held that assessee is not required to disclose income of his wife - Reassessment u/s 147(a) is not valid
-
1987 (4) TMI 2
Rights of the assessee under s.24(2) of 1922 Act to carry forward speculation losses - assessee registered firm is entitled to set off speculation loss computation under Indian Income-Tax Act 1922 against speculation profits in the subsequent year because it is the vested right of assessee
-
1987 (4) TMI 1
Whether on a proper construction of the agreement between the Indian company and the export company, the Tribunal was right in holding that the six non-resident companies in Group A had business connection with the Indian company and, therefore, that the Indian company was correctly treated as an agent of the said non-resident companies under section 163
....
|