|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 293 Records
-
1988 (3) TMI 53 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... ne the wider submission canvassed by the learned advocate for the assessee placing reliance on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Eternal Science of Man s Society 1981 128 ITR 456 and (if the Madras High Court in CIT v. Nachimuthu Industrial Association 1982 138 ITR 585, which have taken the view even independently of the said circular that in such circumstances and on such facts, section 13(2)(h) would not apply. We, therefore, need not dilate on these decisions. Consequently, even the second contention canvassed by the learned advocate for the Revenue is found to be devoid of any substance and is rejected. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it has to be held that the Revenue has failed to make out any of the contentions canvassed before us in this reference. All the four referred questions, therefore, are answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference stands accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 52 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty in respect of the aforesaid item of Rs. 5,28,547 was leviable under the substantive provisions of section 271(1)(c) or the Explanation thereto. Once it is found that the assessee had concealed the income of Rs. 5,28,547 or furnished inaccurate particulars in respect thereof, it must be held that the penalty imposed on it by the Tribunal is reasonable and justified. In fact, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the Tribunal had imposed the maximum penalty prescribed under law, it would have been justified. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty at 150 per cent. of the income concealed, in our opinion, is fully justified. In the view which we are taking, we answer all the questions referred to us for our opinion in the affirmative and against the assessee. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 51 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion as reframed, whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty under section 271(1) is leviable or not is answered in the affirmative. In our view, it is futile to go into a detailed discussion of facts. Suffice it to say that the assessment year in question was 1973-74 and the amount of penalty is Rs. 3,520. We, accordingly, hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was not correct in holding that there could not be any penalty under section 271(1) for failure to furnish the return under section 139(1) of the Act. The question posed before us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, however, we shall make no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be sent under the seal of this court and signature of the Registrar to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, which, we are informed, is the only Bench available throughout the State of Bihar.
-
1988 (3) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... view of the Appellate, Tribunal in this regard has to be accepted. Question No. (3) raises a question whether payment of Rs. 86,263 being interest on purchase tax was deductible in computing the assessee s total income. This question is not res integra so far as this court is concerned. In Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT 1983 144 ITR 732 (All) FB , a Full Bench of this court held that interest paid on delayed payment of sugarcane purchase tax under the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, is an allowable deduction. Therefore, the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in this regard deserves to be upheld. We, therefore, decide questions Nos. (2) and (3) against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the reference of the Revenue is partly allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned Bench of the Appellate Tribunal which shall pass an order to dispose of the case conformably to our judgment.
-
1988 (3) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... question is no more res integra and is fully covered by Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Company v. CIT 1980 123 ITR 429, in which the Supreme Court held that the interest paid on arrears of cane cess under section 3(3) of the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, is an allowable deduction as revenue expenditure. The second part of this question is whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid on the arrears of sugarcane purchase tax is an allowable deduction. This question is squarely covered by Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT 1983 144 ITR 732 (All) FB , in which their Lordships constituting a Full Bench held that interest paid on arrears of sugarcane purchase tax is an allowable deduction. For the above reasons, we answer both questions Nos. (i) and (ii) against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Let the record of this case be laid before the Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, to pass an order conformably to our judgment. No order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 48 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... and, therefore, an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. Since payment of surtax is not an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, the question whether it comes within the mischief of section 40(c)(ii) of the Income-tax Act does not arise. In other words, it is not necessary to consider whether the prohibition contained in section 40(a)(ii) is applicable to the payment of surtax. The view similar to the one taken by us has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Molins of India Ltd. v. CIT 1983 144 ITR 317, the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. International Instruments P. Ltd. 1983 144 ITR 936, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in A. V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 159 ITR 431 and the Madras High Court in Sundaram Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1986 159 ITR 646. In the view which we are taking, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Priority Industry ... ... ... ... ..... evelopment rebate remained unabsorbed and, therefore, whether the development rebate was claimed at a higher rate or lower rate in the earlier years was not of much materiality. The aforesaid decision rendered in the context of section 80J, the scheme and content of which is different from sections 33 and 34 of the Act, is not apposite to this case. Section 33 read with the Fifth Schedule fixes the rate of development rebate and, therefore, it becomes the duty of the assessing officer to compute it correctly and this could be done until the development rebate allowable for any particular year is fully adjusted. Thereafter, the mistake, if any, could be corrected only under section 154. Hence, we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention raised by the Department. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion on both the questions and accordingly we answer the two questions referred for our opinion in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1988 (3) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... efore the filing of the income-tax returns clearly supports the view that taxes and duties not statutorily payable during the accounting year do not fall to be disallowed under section 43B. The petitioners in all the cases (other than the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7207 of 1984) raised the aforesaid plea and complained that in their assessments for the year 1984-85, disallowance of the sales tax payable for the month of March, 1984, was made under section 43B, although such sales tax is payable on or before April 25, 1984. The Incometax Officers concerned shall verify the aforesaid claim of the petitioners and, if found true, make appropriate modification of the assessments already made allowing the sales tax for the month of March, 1984. In the result, Writ Petition No. 7207 of 1984 is dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. All the other writ petitions are partly allowed to the extent indicated above but without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each case.
-
1988 (3) TMI 45 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... d that the sale was by the society on its own. The fact that the sale proceeds were adjusted against the loans outstanding and due from the members would indicate that the eggs were marketed by the society on behalf of its members. As regards the controversy whether the eggs constitute (, agricultural produce or not, we have not the slightest doubt that, poultry farming, being an extended form of agriculture, certainly qualifies eggs to be treated as agricultural produce for the purpose of section 80P(2)(iii) of the Act. In the absence of any finding regarding the crucial question concerning the ownership of eggs, we are unable to answer the question referred to us, and we accordingly return the reference to the Tribunal to examine and investigate the facts, determine the ownership of the eggs at the time of marketing by the assessee-society, and determine the question of exemption in the light of the principles set out by us. The reference is accordingly returned. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 44 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... for these two periods. The Incometax Officer rejected the contention holding that it was a case of a mere change in the constitution of the assessee-firm in terms of section 187(2)(a) of the Act and as such only one assessment had to be made for the entire assessment year. The assessee s appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was, however, accepted upholding the assessee s contention. The Tribunal has also taken the same view. Hence, this reference at the instance of the Revenue. The point involved for decision by us is concluded by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. United Commercial Co. 1988 169 ITR 761. Following that decision, the Revenue s contention is to be rejected and the Tribunal s view must be held to be justified. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by holding that the Tribunal was justified in directing that two assessments should be made for the relevant assessment year. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 43 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ect of impressing the order ostensibly made by the Income-tax Officer as an order made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The order continues to be one passed by an Incometax Officer. Appeal remedies are provided under the Act treating the order as if it is an order passed by the Income-tax Officer. All other consequences under the Act which are associated with an Income-tax Officer passing the order himself are also associated with the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, although under instructions and directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. In our opinion, it is difficult to accept the contention that the orders in question must be regarded as orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner so that there is an ouster of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, Having regard to this view, we answer all the three questions referred in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 42 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on record. The provisions of section 60 can have no application in a case where the corpus itself is transferred. Having regard to the above, question No. 1 is answered in the negative to the effect that the provisions of section 60 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have no application. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative to the effect that there as a valid gift by the assessee in favour of Venkatalakshmi. Finally, question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative to the effect that the share of profits corresponding to the extent of share gifted in favour of Venkatalakshmi cannot be included in the hands of the assessee. In the result, all the three questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As the assessee succeeds in the reference fully, we direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to pay the fee of the amicus curiae which we fix at Rs. 250. We record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by Sri N. Srirama Murthy, amicus curiae.
-
1988 (3) TMI 41 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... accusation made in the complaint. In other words, the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredient of the offence which has been alleged against the accused. Having regard to the principles laid down by this court in Dooars Transport s case 1986 162 ITR 383, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Chandrasekhar 1985 151 ITR 433, there is a bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence lodged. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the initiation of the criminal proceeding under section 276CC(ii) of the Act is without jurisdiction and must be quashed. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed. Criminal Case No. C/1462 of 1986 (State v. Gopalji Shaw) pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, will stand quashed. The respondents are directed not to proceed any further with the said criminal case. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 40 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 8. It was filed only on November 23, 1978. The tax, as per the return, was paid, on December 7, 1978. The disclosure in the instant case was made through the medium of a return. So, in this case, no question of issuing a notice under section 139(2) or section 148 of the Act can arise. The tax on the income disclosed was not paid along with the disclosure. It was fully paid long after the disclosure was made, i.e., on December 7, 1978. On these premises, we have to hold that the assessee failed to pay the tax on the income so disclosed prior to the issue of notice under section 139(2) or section 148 of the Act (in this case, along with the return). In exhibit P-3, the Commissioner of Incometax has expressed the said view in rejecting the application filed by the assessee and in denying the relief prayed for under section 273A of the Act. We are of the view that exhibit P-3 is justified in law and no interference is called for in this writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 39 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions
... ... ... ... ..... ased would undoubtedly connote the domain and control of the property given into the assessee s hands. From the facts on record, it is clear that, apart from the payment of substantial purchase consideration, the assessee secured possession of the property on August 10, 1976, which is within the period of one year specified under section 54(1) of the Act. There might have been some procedural delay in obtaining formal registration of the sale deed. But, that, in our opinion, is immaterial. In the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee purchased another residential house within the period of one year as stipulated under section 54(1) of the Act. The house property purchased by the assessee had come into the full domain and control of the assessee within the period of one year. In the circumstances, our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 38 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ly, the orders of penalty, having been passed in the month of March, 1977, i.e., after April 1, 1976, were bad in law. The Tribunal, relying on the decision of this court in CIT v. Dhadi Sahu 1976 105 ITR 56, accepted this contention of the assessee an cancelled the penalties. But the Revenue succeeded in getting the statement of case called for on the question of law indicated above. On behalf of the assessee, reliance was again placed on Dhadi Sahu s case 1976 105 ITR 56 (Orissa), where exactly the same question was referred and answered in favour of the assessee. On the basis of that decision which is applicable to this case, the answer to the question must be given in favour of the assessee and it must be held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had ceased to have jurisdiction to pass the orders of penalty. The assessee in the circumstances should also get the costs of these references. Hearing fee is, however, assessed at Rs. 250 only. S. C. MOHAPATRA J.-I agree.
-
1988 (3) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Gift Tax, Valuation Under Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... on the footing that the building was a residential one with land appurtenant thereto. Having regard to the available materials on record, we consider it reasonable that deduction of 15 should be made from the value of the property arrived at by the Tribunal by adopting the land and building method. If that deduction is made, the value of the property would be Rs. 84,150. The difference between the said value and the value admitted by the assessee is not much. Hence, we do not think it worthwhile to go into the question whether the valuation should be on the basis of capitalisation of rent only. In the result, we hold that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was in error in not making an allowance of 15 for the tenant s occupation of the gifted property while computing the value thereof. The question as reframed by us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 36 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Payments In Cash, Payments Not Deductible ... ... ... ... ..... r to the business or to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, It is not possible to accept that an assessee like the one in the present case accepted the risk and responsibility to make payments in cash by contravening the provisions contained in the Income-tax Act that payments in excess of Rs. 2,500 ought to be made by crossed cheques or crossed demand drafts. The Revenue cannot be found fault with for insisting on the strict compliance with a requirement directed to check tax evasion. In the circumstances, we feel that even on the basis of the assessee s explanation filed on March 6, 1980, no case is made out for excepting these payments under rule 6DD(j) of the Act. We hold that the tax authorities were justified in disallowing the expenses in computing the income for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. Our answer to the question referred is, therefore, in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Gift, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... o transfer has been made by the assessee of these lands and, therefore, there was no gift ? . 2. That the factual position appears to be that the lands in question could not have been validly transferred by the assessee ? The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the above questions to this court for being dealt with in accordance with law. The original petition is disposed of as above.
-
1988 (3) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Accounting, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... e Income-tax Officer s report in the affirmative, the Tribunal held that the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to revalue the opening stock also on the same basis was uncalled for. The Commissioner felt aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal and sought for the present reference and that is how question No. 1 was referred to this court. We have not the slightest doubt that the view of the Tribunal was correct. In the face of the finding that the change adopted by the assessee was for bona fide purposes and was not actuated by considerations of reducing the income for income-tax purposes, the Revenue has no right to interfere with the change in the method of valuation of the closing stock. The Tribunal had referred to a long list of cases supporting the above view and we are in entire agreement with the proposition. Having regard to the above, the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
....
|
