|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 235 of 235 Records
-
1988 (12) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... ital of the company. It is, thus, evident that the Supreme Court s observations are in regard to a reserve created out of the profits of the year in respect of which there is a recommendation both for creating a reserve and for declaring a dividend. The admitted position in this case being that no reserve for the purpose of distribution of dividend was created out of the profits of the year, we hold that the Supreme Court decision is not applicable in this case. On the other hand, the ratio of the decision elaborately referred to by us above supports the assessee s claim that the dividend declared in May, 1964, would not relate back and it cannot be held that the amounts so declared represented any known or existing liability as on December 31, 1963. No reserve for distribution of dividend to be declared having been created out of the profits of the year, the question of law requires to be and is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest Payable By Government ... ... ... ... ..... o interest under section 214 on the excess amount of tax paid with reference to the tax payable by the assessee as per the Tribunal s order ? Counsel are agreed that the second question has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. 1984 146 ITR 452. Counsel are also agreed that if the second question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue, the first question would become academic and need not, therefore, be answered. In the above view of the matter, the first question is not answered and the second question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Casual And Non-recurring Receipt, Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ? and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the aforesaid sum was eligible for rebate under section 2(4)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1967 ? Counsel are agreed that both the questions must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue, in view of the judgment of this court in Metal Rolling Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1983 142 ITR 170. The questions are so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Value As On 1-1-1954 ... ... ... ... ..... nt of interest represented by each share in the assets of the company certainly remained the same and having regard to the fact that reduction in the face value of shares was an event subsequent to January 1, 1954, it is not possible to import the subsequent facts for the purposes of valuing these shares as on January 1, 1954. It is, as we have already stated, not in dispute that the shares sold during the previous year are the shares which the assessee owned and possessed from long before January 1, 1954. Once that fact is accepted, the valuation of these shares as on January 1, 1954, will have to be as it was on that day and no adjustment in that regard would be justified on account of subsequent events. The Tribunal, in our view, correctly drew support in this regard from the Supreme Court s decision in Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. s case 1971 82 ITR 788. Accordingly, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... twithstanding the fact that the assessee did not have an approved gratuity fund under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? Counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 585. The question is so answered.
-
1988 (12) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... rrectly computed by the Income-tax Officer under rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, by excluding the moneys borrowed from the bank amounting to Rs. 17,31,707 and other unsecured loan of Rs. 14,40,723 ? 3. If the answer to question No. 2 above is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said amounts of Rs. 17,31,707 of the loan taken from the bank and Rs. 14,40,723 of the other unsecured loans were includible in the capital computation base of the assessee under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961/rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ? It is agreed that the first and third questions must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in view of the Supreme Court s judgment in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 152 ITR 308. The questions are so answered. In view of the answer to the third question, it is unnecessary to consider the second question, and it is not, accordingly, answered. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Assessment, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... penalty. In that view of the matter, the rate of penalty in this case would be in addition to any tax payable, a sum which shall not be less than twenty per cent., but which shall not exceed one and a half times the amount of tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income as returned by the petitioner had been accepted as the correct income. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed. The rule is made absolute. Let appropriate writs be issued. The concerned officer is directed to recompute the penalty in accordance with the provisions existing on the date of filing of the original return, i.e., to say on August 10, 1964. It is made quite clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to prefer any further appeal or revision under the Act against the recomputation to be made in terms of this order. There will be no order as to costs. Let a plain copy of the operative part of this order and the judgment be given to the learned advocate for the petitioner.
-
1988 (12) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Exclusion From Rebate, Manufacturing Company, Road Transport Vehicle ... ... ... ... ..... an oil pressure pump, the dumpers were identical to trucks. The Tribunal observed, rightly, that a road transport vehicle meant a vehicle intended to transport goods or material from one point to another by plying it on a road. It held that, in that sense, the dumpers in question, keeping in view the use to which they had been put by the assessee in the year under consideration and the purpose for which they had been purchased, were road transport vehicles. The conclusion of the Tribunal is, essentially, a conclusion of fact arrived at upon a consideration of the relevant material. There is nothing in the conclusion which is unreasonable, let alone perverse. It is not, in these circumstances, for this court in a reference application to reassess the evidence. The conclusion of the Tribunal must stand. The second question, reframed by us as aforesaid, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee shall pay to the Revenue the costs of the reference.
-
1988 (12) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, Disallowance, Entertainment Expenditure, Expenditure On A Public Issue, Installed, Perquisite, Plant And Machinery, Reference, Remuneration, Roads
-
1988 (12) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Disallowance, Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction
-
1988 (12) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... inding of the Income-tax Officer are employed for the purpose of giving the assessee an opportunity of preferring an appeal or a revision against the Income-tax Officer s finding. If the assessee does prefer an appeal or revision but loses, the obligation of the Income-tax Officer to allow such debt or a part thereof as a deduction for the year in regard to which he is satisfied that the debt or part thereof became a bad debt remains. His finding has only been confirmed in appeal or in revision. There is no warrant for construing section 155(6) so as to hold that an assessee forfeits the right to have a bad debt written off in the year in which the. Income-tax Officer finds it to have become bad if he has filed an appeal or revision against the finding. We find that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were right in the construction they placed upon section 155(6) and answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
General Reserves And Taxation Reserves, Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. Virtually, identical questions arose in I. T. R. No. 182 of 1971 in respect of the same assessee for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. That reference (I. T. R. No. 182 of 1971) was decided on August 27, 1981. Following that judgment, the first question before us is answered thus Neither the taxation reserve nor the general reserve can be considered to be an allowance or an expenditure. In the circumstances, the second question does not arise. The third question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in prosecution and/or penalty proceedings. In view of these conditions in the letter which must have been the basis of the settlement, we are in agreement with the Tribunal that there remains virtually nothing on record to suggest that the amounts offered for taxation really represented the assessee s income in the sense that they would attract the penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) read with or without the Explanation thereto. Moreover, once the assessee had disclosed the particulars of such income in Part IV of the return, the non-acceptance of the claim by the Department on the ground that such income was not exempt, the assessee not being able to prove the sources, does not bring the assessee within the purview of section 271(1)(c). In the above view of the matter, we are in agreement with the Tribunal that the assessee is not liable to penalty. Accordingly, all the three questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (12) TMI 2 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 119(2)(b). it is definitely relatable to a claim arising under the category of any other relief available under the Act. The contention of learned counsel for the Department that if no power had been granted to an Income-tax Officer or any other Officer to condone the delay in making such a claim, the Board also cannot extend time, will not be correct, because this provision expressly provides that, where any time limit has been fixed, such time limit can be extended or delay condoned by the Board. Therefore, in my opinion, the Board has approached the matter in too technical a way and the finding that the application or claim referred to in section 119(2)(b) does not cover a claim made in a return is not correct and hence the order or endorsement as per annexures C and shall stand quashed with a direction to the Board to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in this order and in accordance with law. Petition allowed. Rule made absolute.
-
1988 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Central Board of Direct Taxes, rejecting the application of the appellant-company under section 80-0 - held that branch of an Indian Company can not be said to be a "foreign enterprise", for the purpose of s.80-O - assessee's appeal is dismissed
....
|
