|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 291 Records
-
1987 (8) TMI 51 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... erruling the decisions of the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana and Andhra Pradesh. The dispute was whether the term capital employed would include short-term borrowings or long-term borrowings for an industrial undertaking. Considering the retrospective amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980, it has been held by the majority that the assessees would get relief only with reference to their own capital and not with reference to any moneys which might have been borrowed by them for employment in the undertaking. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the writ applications. The other questions relating to non-maintainability of the writ applications raised by the Revenue are not required to be considered which would be of academic interest only. In the result, the writ applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. H. L. AGRAWAL C.J.-I agree.
-
1987 (8) TMI 50 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeals, Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... tablish that certain books were not maintained, the existence of which was presumed by the Income-tax Officer. That was an entirely different circumstance and is totally unconnected with the making of an ex parte assessment. Learned counsel for the assessee raised a further plea that this court would not be justified in taking into account the aforesaid legal principle inasmuch as a plea to that effect was not raised by the Revenue at any time and exercising advisory jurisdiction, this court ought not to take note of the matter. We do not wish to go into this question as we have answered this reference not merely on the latter ground, but we have also come to the conclusion that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was, on the facts and in the circumstances, justified in setting aside the assessment without annulling the same. Having regard to the above, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 49 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ring to recognise the part played by the shareholders in the prosperity of the company by giving them small mementoes. We do not consider that the causal connection between the business carried on by the assessee and the shareholders is demolished merely by reason of the shareholders being other than business customers. As far as the directors are concerned, there can belittle dispute that they worked for the company and played a significant part in the conduct of the business. Considering the magnitude of the income earned by the assessee and the small expenditure of about Rs. 35 on each silver memento presented to the shareholders or directors, we are unable to support the Revenue s contention that the expenditure is not wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business qualifying for deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. We accordingly answer the question in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 48 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Loss, Speculative Transactions ... ... ... ... ..... (SC) and S. P. Jain 1973 87 ITR 370 (SC) do not help the assessee. The conclusion that a transaction is a hedging transaction can be arrived at on the basis of primary and relevant facts and not by mere application of a principle of law. This is not a case where the assessee has challenged the final conclusion of fact but has failed to challenge separately the evidentiary facts leading up to the conclusion. In S. P. Jain s case 1973 87 ITR 370 (SC), the Revenue had challenged a particular finding of the Tribunal as perverse which was not allowed either by the Tribunal or by the High Court. The Supreme Court proceeded on the basis that the question which was allowed by the High Court to be raised might have covered the question of perversity. For the reasons as aforesaid, we are unable to accept the contentions of the assessee and we answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1987 (8) TMI 47 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Concealment Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ce No. 8 of 1981), decided today, and for the reasons given therein, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose penalty in such matters where the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was seized of the penalty proceedings prior to April 1, 1976. For the same reason, it has to be held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose penalty in the present case since he was already seized of the penalty proceedings prior to April 1, 1976. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the view that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty after March 31, 1976, even in a case like the present one where the penalty proceedings were pending before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on that date. Since the Tribunal has not decided the appeal before it on merits, the appeal shall be decided afresh. No costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 46 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction To Levy Penalty, Law Applicable To Concealment Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... 7, 1987-CIT v. Sri Niwas Rice and Oil Industries 1988 169 ITR 253 (Raj)). In the present case, the Income-tax Officer, after initiating the penalty proceedings, had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on February 5, 1976, and, therefore, the reference was pending before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to the deletion of sub-section (2) of section 274 of the Act with effect from April 1, 1976. Accordingly, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy penalty on the assessee in this pending reference under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the view that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty in the present case. Since the Tribunal did not decide the appeal before it on merits, the matter shall be decided afresh by the Tribunal on merits. No costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 45 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the question as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure amounting to Rs. 22,643 was or was not allowable under section 37(1) of the Act, would be a question of law. However, the other question (question No. 2) raised by the assessee does not arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and hence the Tribunal cannot be directed to refer that question. For all these reasons, this application is partly allowed. The Tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the following question of law to this court for its opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 22,650 incurred by the assessee on plantations in the factory premises and residential quarters of the company was allowable as deduction in terms of sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? Parties shall bear their own costs of this application.
-
1987 (8) TMI 44 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Agricultural Asset, Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... asset. It cannot be disputed that the cist, when it is received in cash, merges into the non-agricultural assets of an assessee. It is difficult to accept the contention that the cist, before it is received, constitutes an agricultural asset. Like any other debt, it is sum of money due to the assessee from the tenant to whom the agricultural lands were leased out. The sum total of the cist receivable which was in arrear on the valuation date certainly constitutes a non-agricultural asset for the purpose of assessment. We hold that the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that the cist receivable also is a nonagricultural asset. We accordingly answer question No. 2 also in the affirmative and against the assessee. In view of our, answers to the three questions in R. C. No. 298 of 1982, our answers to the questions in the other R. Cs. Nos. 300, 301, 303 and 313 of 1982 are also in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 43 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rnover and the Board of Revenue found from the material on record that the assessee had not concealed its turnover or had not filed a false return with dishonest intention, the imposition of penalty on the assessee under section 43 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, for concealment of turnover would not be justified. In the instant case also, as we have already pointed out earlier, the Tribunal had recorded a finding from the material on record that the assessee had not concealed her turnover, nor had she filed a false return with dishonest intention. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to us is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In other words, the question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 42 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Income-tax Officer made the assessment in undue hurry, accepting what the assessee stated in the return without making any enquiries, in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner would be justified in holding the order of the Income-tax Officer to be erroneous. In the instant case, however, the Tribunal has found that the assessee had furnished all the requisite information and that the Income-tax Officer, considering all the facts, had completed the assessment. The Tribunal further held that in the circumstances of the case, it could not be held that the Income-tax Officer had made the assessment without making proper enquiries. In view of these findings, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in reversing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1987 (8) TMI 41 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the subject-matter of the appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer in the reassessment proceedings had no jurisdiction to tax new sources of income. Our answer to question No. (1) referred to this court is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the Revenue. As regards question No. (2), the Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in holding that the unauthorised use of the car of the company by the assessee could not constitute a perquisite. The view of the Tribunal is supported by a decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. A. R. Adaikappa Chettiar 1973 91 ITR 90. We see no cogent reason to take a view different from that taken in 1973 91 ITR 90 (Mad). Our answer to question No. (2) referred to this court is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the Revenue, Reference answered accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference in the circumstances of the case.
-
1987 (8) TMI 40 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evidence at all. Indeed, that was not the Revenue s case at any stage of the proceedings. We are, therefore, unable to countenance the plea raised by learned standing counsel as to the above fact at this stage. There is sufficient evidence to show that the sum of Rs. 90,000 credited to the assessee represented his share of goodwill relating to the partnership firm. In fact, the Tribunal furnished statistics in its order in support of the proposition that there is basis for the sum of Rs. 90,000 being arrived at as the assessee s share of goodwill in the partnership firm. If what was credited to the assessee s account represented the consideration for goodwill, it is clear, no liability to capital gains arises, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty 1981 128 ITR 294. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we answer questions Nos. (2) (3) and (4) as indicated above, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemption Under Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... stion in detail because so far as the present case is concerned, it has been found that the land in question was not used by the assessee for agricultural purposes in the accounting year in question. In view of this finding, income derived by sale of that land could not be held to be agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Act. As the land sold by the assessee was situated within the limits of the Indore Municipal Corporation, it would be a capital asset as defined by section 2(14) of the Act. The profit derived by the assessee by the sale of land was, therefore, liable to be taxed as capital gains. The Tribunal, in our opinion, erred in holding that the profit earned by the assessee by sale of that land was agricultural income not liable to be taxed. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1987 (8) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Ad Interim Injunction, High Court, Property Tax ... ... ... ... ..... hat the injunction already granted be extended. Further more, the interest of the defendant would be looked after squarely inasmuch as I propose to direct the plaintiff to deposit a further sum of Rs. 35 lakhs keeping in view the fact that a sum of Rs. 91,21,108 has been assessed to be the total tax for the year 1986-87 by the defendant in the impugned order which would raise the total deposit to Rs. 70 lakhs. From whichever angle I may consider the matter before me, I find it is a fit case in which the ad interim injunction already granted be extended till the decision of the suit and accordingly it is extended till the decision of the suit provided the plaintiff deposits another sum of Rs. 35 lakhs within four weeks hereof and on failure of the plaintiff to deposit the said amount of Rs. 35 lakhs, the injunction would stand vacated. Nothing observed above would affect the merits of the case which will be considered after evidence has been led. This disposes of these I. As.
-
1987 (8) TMI 37 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Commission, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... or the assessee could not give any cogent reason in support of his submission that in a case where the demand raised following an order made under section 271(1)(c) of the Act within the period of limitation, is defective, the order imposing the penalty is rendered invalid having been made beyond the period of limitation. We are accordingly of the opinion that the Tribunal was quite justified in refusing to state the case and refer those two questions for the opinion of this court. Clearly, the third question is a question which is consequential to the first two questions and if no statement of case can be called for in respect of those two questions, no statement of case can be called for in respect of the third question as well. The last two questions are, as already mentioned, questions of fact and no statement of the case can be called for in respect of them. In the result, we find no merit in this application under section 256(2) of the Act which fails and is dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 36 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not been disputed that the question, being one which can be treated to be at best a mixed question of fact and law, it was in the discretion of the Tribunal to permit or not to permit the said question to be raised. Of course, discretion has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. In view of the facts of the instant case pointed out above, it is difficult to hold that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal was not judicial, but was arbitrary. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to us is that the Tribunal was right in law in refusing to entertain the following ground which was raised by the assessee at the stage of argument That the inordinate delay in passing the order under section 28(1)(c) be held a good ground for not levying penalty. In other words, the question is answered in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the Department. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 35 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the instant case that the order imposing penalty was necessarily bad simply because it was delayed. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to question No. (i) stated above is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, not right in holding that the penalty order dated January 30, 1979, made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law. Our answer to question No. (ii) is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the penalty order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, on January 30, 1979, was bad in law as having been made after an inordinate delay of six years of the order of remand without recording relevant findings and fixing responsibility for the delay and finding its effect upon the penalty order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (8) TMI 34 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ich was the written down value as per the balance-sheet of the assessee for the previous year. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this reference has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Under section 7 of the Act, the market value of plant and machinery on the valuation date would be the value of that asset for the purposes of the Act. The valuation date in the instant case was November 3, 1975, when the relevant accounting year ended. The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in holding that the value of the plant and machinery should be taken to be the written down value thereof as on the first day of the accounting year in question irrespective of the depreciation allowed during the year. Our answer to the question referred to this court by the Tribunal is, therefore, in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1987 (8) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... her there was reasonable cause for filing a delayed return, is a pure question of fact and no question of law arises therefrom and no reference can, therefore, be sought with regard to it. A similar view was expressed in two later judgments of this court namely, Addl. CIT v. Roshan Lal Kuthiala 1978 100 ITR 329 and CWT v. Kamla Devi 1980 126 ITR 483. Further, it has also been ruled by this court in Telu Ram Raunqi Ram v. CIT 1984 146 ITR 401, that if the decision of a High Court of a State covers a question sought to be referred to that High Court, then so far as the Tribunal of that State is concerned, no referable question of law can be said to arise, even if the given question raises a question of law, as otherwise it will tantamount to questioning the correctness of the binding decision of the High Court by the Tribunal. The legal position being as set forth above, this reference cannot but be left unanswered and is accordingly returned as such. D. S. TEWATIA J.-I agree.
-
1987 (8) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ed on April 9/16, 1987 (CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel 1987 168 ITR 472), may stand in the way of the Revenue. He particularly invited our attention to the observations in the paragraph beginning with the words in the present case in support of his case that on account of these observations, the Tribunal may foreclose the issue. Those observations were made in the facts of that case where there was not even a germ in the orders of the authorities below doubting the genuineness of the deal unlike here where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner described it as camouflage in our view, the apprehension is ill-founded because our observations could never be interpreted to run counter, to the observations of the Supreme Court in Sunil Siddharthbhai 1985 156 ITR 509, at page 523. In view of our decision on the two reformulated questions, the matter must go back to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
....
|
