Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 227 of 227 Records
-
1988 (11) TMI 7
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... tanding sale proceeds of machines manufactured by it ? The issue has been decided by this court in the assessee s own case in regard to the earlier years (CIT v. Buckau Wolf New India Engineering Works Ltd. 1984 150 ITR 180). Accordingly, counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (11) TMI 6
Double Taxation Relief ... ... ... ... ..... d for by the agreement. If such certificate is not produced, the outstanding demand may be collected. The sub-clause does not impose an obligation of a mandatory nature upon the assessee. It cannot be read to place upon the assessee an obligation to produce such certificate of assessment or forfeit his right to the abatement. certificate of assessment would be the best evidence but, where it is impossible to obtain it, the assessee can resort to other evidence and satisfy the taxing authorities on the strength thereof. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in not insisting upon the production of the certificate of assessment but requiring instead the assessee to produce before the Income-tax Officer other satisfactory evidence of the tax paid by it upon assessment in Pakistan. In the circumstances, the question that is posed to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (11) TMI 5
Collaboration Agreement ... ... ... ... ..... eduction in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72 ? Counsel are agreed that the issue is concluded by a judgment of this court in the assessee s own case reported in CIT v. T. Maneklal Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1978 115 ITR 725 and that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (11) TMI 4
Company, Deemed Dividend ... ... ... ... ..... ) a payment by such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits. Under clause (31) of section 2, person includes a company. This case is, therefore, squarely covered in the first instance by the provision of sub-clause (e), i.e., of an advance or loan to a shareholder who has a substantial interest in the company . The phrase referred to by Mr. Rajagopal is used in respect of the second instance and has no application. In the result, the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. It is agreed by counsel that the answer to the second question must be in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue, having regard to the judgment of this court in CIT v. P. K. Badiani 1970 76 ITR 369. Accordingly, both questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee shall pay to the Revenue the costs of the reference.
-
1988 (11) TMI 3
... ... ... ... ..... mount of Rs. 61,340 could be assessed in the hands of the asses see as income from an adventure in the nature of trade was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The suit that was pending in this court against Messrs. A. V. Thomas and Co. (India) Ltd. was settled for the sum of Rs. 62,000 in the year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65. As against it, an amount of Rs. 33,548 was adjusted, leaving a balance of Rs. 28,461 which is the subject matter of the question before us. The Income-tax Officer treated this amount as profit accruing to the assessee from an adventure in the nature of trade. Following the earlier judgment of the Tribunal, his order was upset both by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. Following the decision of this court in CIT v. Himalayan Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. 1975 100 ITR 177, the question arising therefrom in this reference must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (11) TMI 2
Rate Applicable, Settlement Or Trust, Stamp Duty ... ... ... ... ..... of such duties. (Proviso omitted being unnecessary in this case). The provision furnishes a complete answer to the question referred for our opinion in view of our conclusion that the instrument is undoubtedly settlement as defined. In this case, the duty payable on the instrument as on a settlement is higher than that leviable on a trust deed, the amount or value involved being more than ten thousand rupees. In the present case, the value of the property is Rs. 7 lakhs. Consequently, the higher rate of duty as provided for an instrument of settlement under article 58 would be applicable. A similar View was taken by the Special Bench in the case of Sita Ram v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1979 All 301. Consequently, we are of the view that the document which has been referred to us by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is liable to stamp duty as an instrument of settlement under article 58 of Schedule IB. Let this opinion be returned to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.
-
1988 (11) TMI 1
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... towards its equity shares and the dollar balances remained in an American bank to the assessee s credit. Upon devaluation of the rupee on June 6, 1966, the increased value of the dollars in deposit with the American bank was reflected in the assessee s books by crediting an account called in on devaluation therewith and correspondingly debiting the American bank s account. The assessee claimed that it was entitled to include this gain on devaluation in the computation of its capital base. The Revenue relied there, as here, upon Explanation I to rule 2. The learned judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the Revenue s contention. They said that this was not a case where a book asset was revalued within the meaning of that Explanation. The gain on devaluation, in their opinion, represented an increase in the value of an asset which had been realised. In the result, the second question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
....
|