|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 291 Records
-
1987 (8) TMI 71 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Total Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... l of the partnership and, therefore, the interest income was their deposit. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention. Ultimately, the Tribunal also has rejected the assessee s contention. It has been held that the interest income in question received by the minors during these years from the partnership was rightly included while computing the total income of the assessee in accordance with section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, this reference at the instance of the assessee. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee before us. We do not find any infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Tribunal or the reasoning on which that conclusion is based. The provision contained in section 64(1)(iii) of the Act is quite clear and it supports the view taken by the Tribunal. Consequently, the reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by holding that the view taken by the Tribunal is justified. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 70 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Firm, Offence, Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ounds alone, I am of the that this is a fit case where this court must interfere and quash the prosecution. Mr. Sethi has raised some more points. According to him, the partners of the firm ought to have been given a shown cause notice before initiating prosecution, particularly when the respondents woke up very late in the day, i.e., almost after 14 years to initiate prosecution. According to Mr. Sethi, if that had been done, be would have shown to the respondents that Parmeet Singh is a minor. In the circumstances of this case, Mr. Sethi further urged that delay in initiating prosecution also is fatal. Mr. Sethi has relied on some case law also in this regard. In view of my findings on the first two contentions of Mr. Sethi, I am not inclined to go into the last contention. To me it appears that there is no justification for these prosecutions to survive. The petitions are, accordingly allowed and the complaints filed against the petitioners are quashed. Petitions allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 69 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Interest, Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... t the Tribunal has really relied on a decision of Sabyasachi Mukharji J., as he then was, in Chloride India Ltd. v. CIT 1977 106 ITR 38 (Cal) for reaching the same conclusion. With respect, we are in full agreement with the same. Several decisions of different High Courts were cited at the bar on this point. We find that a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Bardolia Textile Mills v. I TO 1985 151 ITR 389, has taken the same view and it has considered earlier decisions on the point. With respect, we concur with this view. We regret that the reasoning in some of the decisions taking the contrary view does not appeal to us and, therefore, we are unable to subscribe to the contrary view. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by holding that the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that the assessee is entitled to interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the amount of refund of tax due to it. No costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... or may be passed by the departmental authorities that surely can be produced by them before the learned trial Magistrate and there is no doubt that due weight and consideration shall be given to that order. No argument has been raised to assail the constitutional validity of 4 section 277 of the Act and rightly so, because the constitutional validity of section 52, a similar provision in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has been upheld by the Supreme Court in T. S. Baliah v. T. S. Rangachari, ITO 1969 72 ITR 787. Those very reasons apply to uphold the constitutional validity of the provisions of sections 278 and 279 of the Act. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, anything said or observed in this judgment may not be taken to be an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case pending before the trial court and that court shall decide the matter on the basis of the evidence produced before it. No costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 67 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... onstitution of a valid partnership, it is not necessary that each and every member should contribute to the capital. This being so, the mere fact that one of the partners, Vimal Kumar, did not contribute to the capital and was a working partner could not invalidate an otherwise validly constituted partnership. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in taking the contrary view. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as under 1. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the partnership constituted by the karta and another member of the same Hindu undivided family with a stranger was not a valid partnership entitled to registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that such a partnership was not validly constituted merely because no contribution to the capital was shown in the name of one of its partners who was a member of the Hindu undivided family. No costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 66 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Partners ... ... ... ... ..... investment in the partnership firms. It is not the assessee s case that the amount owing to the three minor sons was invested in any business carried on on his own account by the assessee so that the interest payable thereon to the three minor sons could be allowed by way of deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It is not also shown as to how the sum payable to the three minor sons was utilised for the purpose of the assessee s business so that interest could be allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In the absence of any details supporting the claim, the authorities below were quite justified in considering the assessee s alternative claim under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as equally untenable. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal affirming the disallowance of the interest of Rs. 16,834 is correct. We accordingly answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appeals, Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... has been passed by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(1)(a), it was not necessary for the Wealth-tax Officer to consider all these points. For the above reasons, we hold that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rightly concluded that the appeals had been filed, in fact, against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 18(2A) which are non-appealable. We, therefore, agree with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and hold that the appeals, in fact, have been filed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Wealthtax under section 18(2A) which, under the law, are non-appealable. In our opinion, the Tribunal has taken the correct view and we entirely endorse the same. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee is to pay Rs. 1,500 by way of costs which shall be paid by a bank draft to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, within one month.
-
1987 (8) TMI 64 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Deduction, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... upreme Court in Jaipuria Samla Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 580, dealing with the corresponding provision in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It was pointed out by the Supreme Court in that decision that such a provision was meant to exclude a tax or a cess or a rate, the assessment of which would follow the determination or assessment of profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. This decision of the Supreme Court clearly supports the view taken by us which is in consonance with the view taken in the above decisions by the Kerala and Madras High Courts. Consequently, the reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue in respect of both the assessment years, i.e., 1973-74 and 1975-76, as under The Tribunal was justified in holding that the surtax paid by the assessee would not be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1987 (8) TMI 63 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Casual And Non-recurring Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... t the assessee was not a share-broker or a promoter of a company or one engaged in the business of setting up a factory. On these findings, the conclusion is inescapable that the case is not covered by clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 10. On behalf of the Department, Sri M. Katju cited a decision in CIT v. P. N. Nagaraj 1976 102 ITR 83 (Mad). We have examined that decision but find the same to be of no assistance. There the finding was that the income was earned by the assessee by reason of the nature of the profession in which he was engaged and because of his professional contacts. Such an income would be clearly traceable to clause (ii) of the proviso to section 10(3). Consequently, it was rightly treated to be an income assessable under the Act. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Department shall pay the costs of the reference which we assess at Rs. 200 to the assessee.
-
1987 (8) TMI 62 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fallacy in the assessee s contention that this payment forms part of the firm s expenditure incurred for earning income of the firm. If it were so, there was no reason to treat it differently instead of saying and treating it as part of the firm s expenditure incurred at its Ahmedabad and Jaipur branches. In that situation, it would not be a lump sum payment to these two partners, but precisely the extra expenditure incurred at these two branches of which the material particulars would be disclosed in the firm s expense account of the two branches. This fact also repels the assessee s contention. We are, therefore, satisfied that the view taken by the Tribunal about the nature of these payments made by the firm to its two partners and the conclusion that deduction of the same is prohibited by virtue of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified. The reference is, therefore, answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, as indicated above. No costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 61 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of letting out a portion of the building to the managing director was for facility of business in the sense that it was essential for better management and control of the assessee s business, the view taken by the Tribunal was correct. Buildings let out to the employees of the assessee may be said to be occupied by the assessee-owner for the purposes of his business envisaged in section 9 only if there is material to show that such occupation of the employees is incidental and subservient to the business of the assessee. In the instant case, we have already held that the occupation of the assessee-company s contractors employees is incidental and subservient to the business of the assessee-company. If that be so, it cannot be chargeable to tax under any head of income. All the questions referred to this court, therefore, are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A consolidated sum of Rs. 1,000 only shall be paid as costs to the assessee by the Revenue.
-
1987 (8) TMI 60 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
"Funds" And "Invest" In S. 13(2)(h), Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... shares in companies other than those excepted. We also note that the assessee is a trust which was founded in 1920 long before the commencement of the Act and that the assessee received the said shares of the company prior to June 1, 1970. Therefore, the user or the application of any property of the assessee for the benefit of persons referred to in section 13(3.), if any, occurred prior to June 1, 1970. It can well be contended that the proviso to section 13(1)(d)(iii) is applicable in the case of the assessee in the instant case and the assessee was entitled to claim exemption in respect of dividends received from the said shares. This has been found by the Tribunal. On this point, no submission was made before us on behalf of the Revenue. For the reasons as stated above, we are unable to accept the contentions of the Revenue. We answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1987 (8) TMI 59 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
HUF, Inclusions In Total Income, Total Income, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ill be included in the individual income of the father, the income arising from the share of converted property allotted to the father himself will not be treated as his individual income but will be treated as the income of the smaller Hindu joint family consisting of the father and his wife. In our opinion, it would be consistent and proper to hold in this case that even after partition, the income arising from the share of converted properties allotted to the assessee-father should be treated as his individual income and be taxed as such, and not as the income of the smaller Hindu joint family consisting of himself and his wife. It is in this connection that the principle of the decision of the Supreme Court in Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT 1975 10l ITR 776 becomes relevant. This aspect has been dealt with by my learned brother. Accordingly, I agree that both the questions referred should be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1987 (8) TMI 58 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the sales of paintings relating to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 were allowed as the assessee was not carrying on any business and it was a casual and non-recurring receipt not liable to income-tax. It may be mentioned here that at the instance of the learned Commissioner, Income-tax, Rajasthan II, Jaipur, reference was made by the Tribunal relating to the said assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 and it has been rejected by this court by its detailed order passed today in Income-tax Reference No. 10 of 1976, CIT v. Moti Chand Khajanchi 1988 171 ITR 280. The Tribunal has correctly applied the law to the admitted or proved facts and has correctly held that the disputed paintings were not intended for sale. The learned Tribunal rightly held them exempt from wealth-tax. As such, the aforesaid question deserves to be answered in the affirmative. In the result, the aforesaid question is answered in the affirmative, against the Department and in favour of the assessee.
-
1987 (8) TMI 57 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Casual And Non-recurring Receipt, Income ... ... ... ... ..... the word casual is defined as meaning (i) subject to or produced by chance accidental, fortuitous (ii) coming at uncertain times not to be calculated on, unsettled. It has been held in Rani Amrit Kunwar v. CIT 1946 14 ITR 561 (All) FB , that the word non-recurring does not mean that the receipt has not, as a matter of accident or as a matter of fact, recurred, but that there is no claim or right in the recipient to expect its recurrence. The word non-recurring does not mean that the receipt is a single one or it has in fact not been repeated, but only that there is no claim or right in the recipient to expect its recurrence. On the basis of the said findings of the Tribunal, it can safely be held that the receipts from the sales of paintings were of a casual and non-recurring nature. As such, the said question deserves to be answered in the affirmative. In the result, the aforesaid question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
1987 (8) TMI 56 - PATNA HIGH COURT
A Partner, Disposition In Favour, Partner In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... debit balance, the same shall be recouped by the retiring partner. In the face of the terms contained in the above clause, there cannot be any doubt that there was no disposition in favour of the three grandsons of the deceased. That being the clear position, it -is obvious that the Tribunal was justified in holding that there had been no disposition by the deceased. The provisions of section 9 read with section 27 of the Act, therefore, are not attracted. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that there had been no disposition by the deceased in favour of any relative when he retired from the partnership and the provisions of section 9 read with section 27 of the Act were not attracted. The reference is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna.
-
1987 (8) TMI 55 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Income ... ... ... ... ..... nt Commissioner were in error in holding that the assessee did not constitute an association of persons and cannot be taxed as such. The first question accordingly has to be answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Once we answer the first question against the assessee, the second question does not really arise for consideration. There is no question of diversion of income by superior title on account of the partnership deed or the joint venture agreement. The finding that the assessment has to be made upon the assessee treating it as an association of persons puts an end to this controversy. Even otherwise, we see no room for applying the said theory in the circumstances of this case. It is an agreement in the nature of a partnership whether it is called a partnership deed or a joint venture agreement. For the above reasons, the second question also is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1987 (8) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ty, we think that the plaintiffs of the suit had claimed only a half share in that property and, therefore, the doctrine, of lis pendens would not apply regarding the half share of the property of the firm. According to the petitioners, the sale of half the property of the firm would fetch much more money than the tax dues standing against the firm. Therefore, we do not think that the objection of the Department regarding not auctioning the half share of the property is quite correct. Ordinarily, the Department should proceed against the property of the firm regarding tax dues against it. From the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that both the writ petitions should succeed and the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed at items Nos. (i) to (iv) contained in the prayer in both the writ petitions. We order accordingly. The petitioners properties in their individual capacities need not be proceeded with. Both the writ petitions are hereby allowed with costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 53 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Banking Company, Business Income, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... penses. In any event, the Tribunal should bear in mind that the claim for deduction by the assessee, if found admissible, cannot be allowed to an extent beyond reducing the income which was determined in the original assessment. The Tribunal shall examine the correctness of the sums which are extracted by us. In the result, we decline to answer question No. 2 to the extent it related to the allowability of expenses under the gratuity, pension fund and labour welfare expenses and remit the matter to the Tribunal for consideration as indicated above. To the extent the question related to the assessability of devaluation profits for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, the question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, we have already indicated that the question is answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 52 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... al has not recorded any such finding and that the matter is left at large. It is now for the Income-tax Officer to see and verify whether the claim of the assessee falls under any one of the sub-clauses of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B and to allow the deduction only when he is satisfied that the claim falls under one or the other of the sub-clauses. We agree that Mr. Dastoor s understanding of the Tribunal s direction is the correct one. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary for us to answer the 8th question. The Income-tax Officer will look into the matter and decide the question of allowability of deduction claimed under the said provision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained herein above. For the above reasons, we answer questions Nos. 6 and 7 in favour of the assessee and decline to answer question No. 8. Our answers to questions Nos. 1 to 5 have already been recorded in the earlier part of this judgment. No costs.
....
|
