|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 374 Records
-
1987 (7) TMI 74 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deemed Gift, Gift ... ... ... ... ..... ed from the total value of the deemed gift . Even otherwise, the assessee s plea should fail. Broadly stated, the devaluation profit is an unexpected phenomenon. It is not peculiar. In this case, the effect of the said devaluation continued even for subsequent years. The income which arose as a consequence of the devaluation is really a trading profit. It represents part of the sale proceeds. For the goods supplied, the assessee got an appreciated value. It cannot be denied that it is part of the trading profit in the hands of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we are unable to accept the plea of the assessee that the devaluation profits should not be reckoned for the purpose of fixing the total value of the deemed gift. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Tribunal as required by law.
-
1987 (7) TMI 73 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Deduction, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... e provisions of section 57 of the Act were not under consideration. Bai Bhuriben Lallubhai v. CIT 1959 29 ITR 543 (Bom) has been approved and followed in CIT v. Mrs. Indumati Ratanlal 1968 70 ITR 353 (Guj), Smt. Padmavati Jaykrishna v. CIT 1975 101 ITR 153 (Guj) and CIT v. H. H. Maharani Vijaykuverba Saheb 1975 100 ITR 67 (Bom). Question No. 1 and the second limb of question No. 2 do not arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated August 31, 1977. Suffice it to say here that neither the figures of Rs. 2,71,000 and Rs. 1,51,818 nor section 56 of the Act finds mention in the said order dated August 31, 1977. As such they are not answered. The first limb of question No. 2 is answered as under The Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee is not entitled for exemption under section 57(iii) of the Act and in not allowing under these provisions the deduction of the amount of interest paid by him on the loans taken on pledging his fixed deposit receipts.
-
1987 (7) TMI 72 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ea was taken since the assessee, even after notice, did not produce the accounts. The assessee was deliberately avoiding an investigation into its business affairs. The Revenue sought to sustain the cancellation or refusal of continuation of registration under section 185(5) of the Act on the above premises and relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Askaran Kissenlal s case 1969 73 ITR 522. After hearing the rival arguments of counsel appearing for both sides, we are satisfied that the question of law formulated in paragraph 11 of the original petition (extracted above) does arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal and the question posed for consideration deserved a fresh look. We direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer the question of law, formulated in paragraph 11 of the original petition (extracted above), for the decision of this court. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for information and compliance.
-
1987 (7) TMI 71 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the firm on the death of any of its partners on account of a contract to the contrary in the partnership deed, the said proviso inserted in sub-section (2) of section 187 of the Act not being applicable, it is a case governed by section 187 since it is merely a case of a change in the constitution of the firm as contemplated by section 187(2) of the Act. Accordingly, one assessment for the entire period was required to be made and the Tribunal s view to the contrary is unjustified. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee as under The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee-firm was automatically dissolved on the death of one of its partners in spite of contract to the contrary in the deed of partnership and, therefore, it was also not justified in holding that it is a case of succession and not merely of a change in the constitution of the firm governed by section 187 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 70 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nal being inconsistent with the initial finding, the same is not justified. It may be added that the proviso inserted in sub-section (2) of section 187 of the Act restrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, has no application since it excludes from the ambit of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 187 only a case where a firm is dissolved on the death of any of its partners. In a case like the present where there is no dissolution of the firm on the death of any of its partners on account of a contract to the contrary in the deed of partnership, the said proviso is not attracted. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee as under The Tribunal having held that it was a case of a change in the constitution of the firm as contemplated by section 187(2) of the Incometax Act, 1961, it was not justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to make two separate assessments. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 69 - DELHI HIGH COURT
House Tax, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Service Of Notice ... ... ... ... ..... the remedy is a discretionary one. Now, in the present case, it is obvious that there has been no valid assessment or levy of tax as far as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. If this is so, then the petitioner/Corporation cannot be allowed to retain the tax wrongly collected by it. The respondents/owners have succeeded before the Additional District judge who has directed the refund of the amount of tax paid to the petitioner. If the respondents had challenged the levy for the years 1979-80 to 1983-84 by filing an appeal earlier, they would have got the relief which has now been given to them. Looking at the paltry amount involved in this case and the fact that the provisions of sections 124 and 126 of the Corporation Act have not been properly followed, this is not a fit case where any interference is called for by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 68 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 46(1) of the 1922 Act or the corresponding provision of section 222(1) of the 1961 Act. It is unnecessary for us to consider and decide this point since the conclusion reached by the Tribunal can be sustained on the ground already stated. For this reason, it is also not necessary to refer to the decisions cited by learned counsel for the Revenue for construing the meaning of the word default in section 46(1) of the 1922 Act. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee for all the three assessment years as under (1) Common question No. (1) for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 need not be answered since the same does not arise out of the Tribunal s order. (2) Common question No. (2) for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 and the only question in the assessment year 1958-59 The Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty on the ground that it was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 67 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Leave To Appeal To Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... which reads as under Provided that nothing contained in clause (a) shall apply to a case where the firm is dissolved on the death of any of its partners. After the insertion of this proviso in sub-section (2) of section 187, it is beyond controversy that it cannot be treated as a case of a change in the constitution of the firm as defined in section 187(2) of the Act, since the firm stood dissolved on the death of one of the partners under the general law of partnership in the absence of a contract to the contrary. Accordingly, it is a case of succession governed by section 188 of the Act on account of the fact that the applicability of section 187 is excluded by virtue of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 187 (see CIT v. Kheta Sons and Co. 1986 162 ITR 833 (MP)). The Tribunal s view was, therefore, justified. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by holding that the view taken by the Tribunal is justified. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 66 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Long-term Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... sation accrued in 1956 on the resumption of his Jagir by the State. The only controversy is about the nature of the surplus receipt on the sale of the Jagir bonds. It has been held by this court in D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 20 of 1978-Eklingji Trust v. CIT 1986 158 ITR 810 (Raj) that the annuity received by the assessee by way of compensation on the resumption of the Jagir land was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. Reliance has been placed therein on several decisions relating to payments received on resumption of proprietary rights like those of the assessee in the present case. It must, therefore, be held that in the present case also, the amount of Jagir bonds was a capital receipt and the Tribunal was justified in the view it has taken about the nature of the surplus received from the sale of the Jagir bonds. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by holding that the Tribunal s view is justified No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 65 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... rent from that of the Supreme Court. The present case is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court indicated earlier. It must, therefore, be held that the firm was entitled to claim deduction in respect of unabsorbed development rebate and depreciation. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the claim of unabsorbed development rebate and depreciation of the unregistered firm could be allowed as deduction for the subsequent year of the registered firm under the provisions of section 77 of the Income-tax Act. The question thus referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, the reference is disposed of in the terms mentioned above but without costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. B. N. AGRAWAL J.-I agree.
-
1987 (7) TMI 64 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... R. No. 2 of 1976, decided on January 9, 1987) has taken a contrary view. It has been held, following the decisions of several other High Courts, that inclusion of new persons as partners who derive the benefit of excise licence for sale of country liquor without the permission of the excise authorities being opposed to public policy, renders the partnership illegal. On this basis, the Full Bench has held that the partnership firm not being validly constituted, the same is not entitled to registration under section 185 of the Act. This is precisely the question for decision in the present case. Following the view held by the Full Bench, this reference is to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Consequently, this reference is answered in favour of the Revenue as under The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee-firm was validly constituted or that it could be granted registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 63 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Law Applicable To Assessment, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... that is applicable for the assessment year 1976-77 is the one that was in force at the beginning of the assessment year, viz., on April 1, 1976. In such circumstances, the Income-tax Officer was justified in applying the provisions of law as were in force for the assessment year 1976-77 without taking note of the amendments which came into effect from June 1, 1978. Even though the order of penalty was passed on March 20, 1979, the Income-tax Officer had to apply the provision of law as was in force on the first day of the assessment year 1976-77 or alternatively the provision of law in force when the default was committed. In that view also, the order of the Income-tax Officer levying penalty is not liable to be questioned. We hold that the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty imposed under section 273(b) of the Act. The question referred to us is accordingly answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 62 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Advancement Of Object Of General Public Utility, Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... ituations. Their trade is lawful. The persons engaged in these trades constitute a sizeable section of the society. It is not necessary that the benefit of the assessee should reach each and every member of the public. So long as the benefit reaches a sizeable number of members of the public, it satisfies the requirement of subserving the general public interest. That is the uniform view taken by all the High Courts in this country. Having regard to the fact that the assessee-association is registered under section 25 of the Companies Act and further having regard to the objects and purposes referred to in detail in the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1976-77, which has been followed in the order relating to the assessment year concerned herein, it must be held that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... re income as a whole never reached the assessee. In fact, in the past, it was the Hindu undivided family which was being assessed on the share income. We find that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the share income as a whole was never assessed on the assessee in his individual capacity even before the partial partition. The Tribunal has further held, on the admitted facts of the case, that the assessee has not received the share income as whole, that it stood divided among the four members and that there was no material on record to the contrary. We have carefully perused the appellate order of the Tribunal and we find that the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas 1961 41 ITR 367 have been correctly applied by the Tribunal to the facts of the present case. In our opinion, therefore, no statable question of law has been made out to be referred to this court. These applications are, therefore, dismissed summarily.
-
1987 (7) TMI 60 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Cottage Industry, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ius Government and/or any other party connected therewith and, if possible, finalise the negotiations in the interests of the company, as they deem fit. It is further resolved that all the expenditure on this travel by both these persons be and is hereby approved to be borne by the company. From the aforesaid resolution, it is clear that the Mauritius trip was undertaken for initiation of a new business and not for the expansion of the business carried on by the assessee. It would, therefore, be in the nature of capital expenditure as rightly held by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In this view of the matter also, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the amount of Rs. 20,270 was allowable as business expenditure in respect of the assessment year 1979-80. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1987 (7) TMI 59 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Cottage Industry, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... tion 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal has referred only question No. 2 for the decision of this court. Question No. 1 centred round the plea of the Revenue that the claim made by the assessee under section 80P(2)(a)(ii) was raised for the first time only before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and hence it should not and could not have been entertained. This question was based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. 1978 111 ITR 1. Since this question was not referred by the Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue filed O.P. No. 7014 of 1982- S. Subsequently, the said O.P. was withdrawn. That is why we are concerned with the only question that has been referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal for our decision. The income-tax referred case is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, as required by law.
-
1987 (7) TMI 58 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch has been wrongly decided by the Tribunal. It cannot be said that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to any rule or provision of law nor can it be said to be vitiated by any misdirection in law. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. So far as the second question is concerned, we agree with the Tribunal that it is not necessary that of the two valuations, the Department is always bound to adopt the lower valuation. The only obligation of the Department is to arrive at a valuation which is fair and reasonable. There is no rule that if two valuations are possible, the Department is bound to adopt the one which is more favourable to the assessee. This was the view of the Karnataka. High Court in V. C. Ramachandran v. CWT 1980 126 ITR 157. Accordingly, this question too is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. No Costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 57 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Providing Credit Facility To Its Members, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... habad and Madhya Pradesh High Courts have taken the same view (vide CIT v. Coral Mills Workers Co-operative Stores Ltd. 1977 106 ITR 868 (Mad) at page 871, Rodier Mill Employees Co-operative Stores Ltd. v. CIT 1982 135 ITR 355 (Mad), Addl. CIT v. U. P Co-operative Cane Union 1978 114 ITR 70 (All) and Malwa Mills Karamchari Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha v. CIT 1982 134 ITR 505 (MP)) In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in negativing the claim of the assessee that it is entitled to deduction under section 80P(1) read with section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, against the, assessee and in favour of the Revenue for all the three years. The Revenue shall be entitled to its costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 500 in each case. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (7) TMI 56 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ated or its operation is suspended by a competent court or authority. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, we asked learned standing counsel for the Department to furnish to us the particulars of the reference which has been filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which is said to be pending. No such particulars were supplied. Nor could standing counsel say with certainty that such a reference having been made to this court is still pending in these circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal when it dismissed the Revenue s appeal and affirmed the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) setting aside the, fresh assessment order made in pursuance of section 263. For the reasons given above, we reject this application by saying that no statable question of law arises in the instant Since no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee to oppose this application, we make no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 55 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sessee is entitled to deduction for the purpose of gratuity under section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, in the light of the principles stated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 585. The further factual determination contemplated under section 40A(7) detailed in paragraph 7 hereinabove, requires a more precise and scientific evaluation and adjudication on facts. Details are wanting in the records at present. In this state of affairs, we cannot satisfactorily answer the questions referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal and so we decline to answer the questions referred to us. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to reconsider the right of the assessee to claim deduction for gratuity in the light of the Supreme Court decisions and the other observations contained in this judgment. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, by the Registrar under his signature and seal of this court.
....
|
