|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 293 Records
-
1988 (3) TMI 33 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or the Revenue, relied upon the decision in Shibram Missir v. Tularam Missir, AIR 1980 Patna 237, where, although the decisions of the Bombay High Court and of the Allahabad High Court were considered, the decision of the Supreme Court has not been referred to. Besides, the Patna High Court was not considering the case of income of a priest who practises the profession based on learning and training. It was considering a case of income of a family of Pandas of Deoghar. Since the question involved in the Patna decision is different, it will have no persuasive effect in this case especially in view of the binding precedent of the Supreme Court. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the reference is to be answered in the negative to the effect that the jajamani income of the individual coparcener in this case cannot be included in the taxable income of the Hindu undivided family. The reference applications are, accordingly, allowed. No costs. K. P. MOHAPATRA J.-I agree.
-
1988 (3) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Application For Reference ... ... ... ... ..... 30,274 was liable to be treated as deductible expenditure. It is true that the Calcutta High Court in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1979 117 ITR 747, has taken the view that the legal charges incurred by the assessee in connection with the execution of a temporary lease for a period of 5 years was capital and not revenue expenditure. We, however, prefer to adopt the reasoning of the Bombay High Court and hold that irrespective of whether the incidental expenditure is incurred in connection with or is related to capital expenditure having regard to the nature of the expenditure, which is in connection with the document of lease, it must be treated as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the question referred is answered as follows In so far as the premium amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is concerned, the expenditure is capital expenditure. In so far as the amount of Rs. 30,274 is concerned, the expenditure was of a revenue character. The Revenue will get its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1988 (3) TMI 31 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
References By Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... not grant a reference to this court merely because the parties have filed applications for leave to appeal. It is only in cases where the parties satisfy the Tribunal that either this court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against its judgment or the Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal against the judgment of this court that a reference may be granted by the Tribunal. In all other cases, the Tribunal should refuse to grant a reference to this court, as the matter is fully covered by an earlier decision of this court and no purpose would be served by granting a reference once again to decide the same question of law. We may, in this connection, draw the attention of the Tribunal to section 158A of the Act. As far as the present case is concerned, the questions referred for consideration, being covered by the decision of this court in Sanka Sankaraiah 1978 113 ITR 313, the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 30 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Application For Reference ... ... ... ... ..... er made under section 254(1) is rejected by the Tribunal. In such a case, the result would be the order made under section 254(1) remains undisturbed and a reference application would have to be made either under subsection (1) of section 256 or sub-section (2) of section 256 of the Act, only with reference to such order, for questions of law could arise only out of such order. In fact, no question of law arises out of an order rejecting an application made under section 254(2) of the Act. This is also the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Popular Engineering Co. v. CIT 1983 140 ITR 398. We are in respectful agreement with that view. Accordingly, we answer the question set out first as follows No application for reference under section 256(2) of the Act lies in respect of an order made by the Appellate Tribunal rejecting an application made before it under sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act. In the result, we reject the civil petitions as not maintainable.
-
1988 (3) TMI 29 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Deduction U/S 80J, Investment Allowance, Person Resident In India, Ships ... ... ... ... ..... which the expression person resident in India occurs in the Explanation to section 32(1)(vi) leaves no doubt, in our mind, that it does not take in Its sweep the Government . The Government is not a person capable of having residence either on its own or in terms of section 6 of the Act. It would be frustrating the very legislative intention to deny relief on the ground that the assessee-Corporation purchased the crafts from the Government of India. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we have no doubt that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion correctly that the scope and amplitude of the Explanation to section 32(1)(vi) does not disentitle the assessee to claim investment allowance under section 32A as well as appropriate deduction under section 80J of the Act. In our opinion, the Tribunal s conclusion is correct. In that view, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Income ... ... ... ... ..... ure incurred by the assessee therefrom. We do not think that in a case like this the Revenue should resort to meticulous accounting in order to subject to tax some small surplus left. From what we have stated above, it is clear that we cannot answer question No. 1 without the particulars about which we have made a comment. It is for the Tribunal to examine these particulars while passing an order conformably to this judgment under section 260(1) of the Act. We, accordingly, decline to answer question No. 1 and direct the Tribunal to examine the matter afresh bearing in mind the principles we have set out above. In view of what we have stated concerning question No. 1, it would not be proper to answer question No. 2, unless there is a surplus as ascertained by the Income-tax Officer after considering the explanations offered by the assessee. We decline to answer question No. 2 also for this reason. The reference is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 27 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Reference, Review, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... without going into the factual question as to whether the assessee had made payment to foreign agents for collecting information in connection with its export promotion. Learned counsel for the assessee was unable to show any material either in the statement of case or in the annexure to the statement of the case that any material evidence had been adduced in support of the said factual information and that a finding had been recorded by any of the authorities. This court rejected the contention of the assessee by specifically stating that there was no sufficient material to say that the amount of Rs. 90,851 was paid during the relevant accounting year by the assessee as commission for obtaining information regarding markets outside India for its export promotion. Therefore, there is neither any palpable error in the order made by this court earlier nor had it resulted in miscarriage of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, we make the following order Application is dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Stay Of Sale Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... ng demand of wealth-tax dues in respect of other assessment years, the petitioner will furnish a bank guarantee from nationalised bank to the satisfaction of the Tax Recovery Officer within period of one month from today. It is being made clear that all the applications which have been moved by the petitioner for waiver of interest shall be disposed of by the concerned authority within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of our order. A certified copy of our order shall be supplied to the concerned authorities within a period of three days from today. It is being made clear that even though the sale of the property may not take place, the attachment made by the opposite parties shall continue till the entire dues are cleared off. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is finally disposed of. A certified copy of this order shall be given to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.
-
1988 (3) TMI 25 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Corrosive Chemicals, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... assessee, one wonders how the tax authorities could be expected to examine the matter and determine the correctness or otherwise of the assessee s claim that the higher rate of depreciation should be allowed because the machinery was coming into contact with corrosive chemicals. The finding of the Income-tax Officer was categorical that the assessee s plant and machinery was not coming into contact with any corrosive chemicals and it was also the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. This finding arrived at is a finding of fact and no question of law arises. So far as we can see, the Tribunal was in error in granting reference to the assessee for the consideration of this court. Even assuming that the matter can be treated as a question of law there can be no escape from the conclusion that the Tribunal was correct in the view it expressed. We accordingly answer the question in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, Company, Residence ... ... ... ... ..... ituated wholly in India and, that therefore, the assessee should have been treated as a resident in India within the meaning of section 6 (3) (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? This court has answered the question in favour of the assessee by considering the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Tribunal found as a fact that the control and management of the affairs of the assessee in the instant case was in the hands of the liquidator. This court affirmed such finding and has further noted that the control and management of the affairs of the company in liquidation is really vested in the High Court acting through the liquidator. The above facts not being in dispute, no substantial question of law of public importance can be said to arise out of the said judgment dated February 20, 1985. This application is, therefore, rejected. The official liquidator is given liberty to retain the costs of this application out of the funds in his hands. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1988 (3) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in deleting the addition of income relating to the property purchased in the names of Shri K. Abdul Rahman, K. P. Abdulla and K. Abdulla Kunhi ? After listening to the arguments of counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the questions sought to be referred are questions of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and they, therefore, require to be referred to this court for opinion. We accordingly direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up the statement of the case and forward the same along with the questions formulated to this court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The original petition is disposed of as above.
-
1988 (3) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal has affirmed the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Hence, this reference at the instance of the Revenue. The only point involved for decision is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT 1980 123 ITR 429. Following that decision of the Supreme Court in respect of the same assessee, this court, for an earlier year of assessment, has held that the interest paid by the assessee to the sales tax department on arrears of sales tax is an admissible deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (See CIT v. Western Indian State Motors 1987 167 ITR 395 (Raj)). Consequently, this reference also has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was justified in treating the interest paid by the assessee on the arrears of sales tax as an admissible deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Charitable Trust, Res Judicata, Wakf ... ... ... ... ..... in subsection (3) Provided that in the case of a trust or institution created or established before the commencement of this Act, the provisions of sub-clause (ii) shall not apply to any use or application, whether directly or indirectly, of any part of such income or any property of the trust or institution for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-section (3), if such use or application is by way of compliance with a mandatory term of the trust or a mandatory rule governing the institution ........ The proviso to clause (c)(ii) of section 13(1) of the Income-tax Act can obviously apply only to a trust which will fall under section 11 of the Act. As We have held that the wakf in question is not a trust covered by section 11 of Income-tax Act, it follows that the second question has also to be answered against the assessee. Hence, the second question is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference to the Revenue.
-
1988 (3) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
HUF, Income ... ... ... ... ..... emani Trading Company belonged to the assessee-Hindu undivided family, Prahlad Maliram, and, consequently, clubbing the income of Temani Trading Company during the relevant period with that of the assessee was not justified. The view taken by the Tribunal on the same question for the earlier assessment years being the only basis for the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in the present case, the same cannot be sustained after the aforesaid decision of this court by order dated January 20, 1987 (D. B. 1. T. Ref. No. 17 of 1978-Prahlad Maliram v. CIT 1987 166 ITR 149) holding that the Tribunal s view on this point pertaining to the earlier assessment years is not justified. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee by holding that the Tribunal was not Justified in treating the income earned in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70 by Temani Trading Company as includible in the hands of the assessee, Prahlad Maliram, Jaipur. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Business Expenditure, Litigation Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... , we have held that the expenditure in dispute had been incurred by the assessee for the acquisition of an asset. For the reasons as aforesaid, we answer the questions referred as follows We answer question No. (1) by stating that the legal expenses incurred by the assessee in defending the suit filed by the shareholders of the Ramjhora Tea Co. Ltd. to set aside the agreement of sale of the Bundapani Tea Estate is admissible as revenue expenditure for the purpose of the assessee s business. But the expenses incurred by the assessee in the suit filed by it against Ramjhora Tea Co. Ltd. for the specific performance of the contract is in the nature of capital expenditure and not deductible. We answer question No. (2) in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Consequently, questions Nos. (3) and (4) have to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1988 (3) TMI 18 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pproached this issue only from the standpoint of settlement proceedings that had taken place. Justifiably or otherwise, the Tribunal went into the question and recorded a finding that it appeared that the substantial portion of the assets upon which tax was agreed to be paid were duly recorded in the assessee s books. Settlement of that nature was quite unusual. This is a case where, if the matters are left to us, we would have probably confirmed the levy of penalties, without saying a further word in the matter, looking into the minutes of the discussion recorded. Two successive Benches of the Tribunal have concurrently gone into the question and have taken a particular view of the facts. We do not think that we would be justified in interfering with the view taken on facts by two Benches of the Tribunal. In that view, we would answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... nge is defined by the Transfer of Property Act as a transaction whereby two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing or both things being money only. When, admittedly, the ownership of Indian money is obtained in place of ownership of foreign currency, that cannot be considered to be an exchange as defined. The contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that it is an exchange and, therefore, a transfer within the meaning of section O.(47) of the Income-tax Act cannot be accepted. In the result, we hold that the surplus amount obtained by the assessee on account of devaluation of the rupee is not a capital gain within the meaning of section 45 of the Income-tax Act. The conclusion of the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter is wrong and unacceptable. The question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Revenue will pay the costs to the assessee. One set. Costs fixed at Rs. 1,000.
-
1988 (3) TMI 16 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... We would now direct the Tribunal to check up the correctness or otherwise of the working of the Wealth-tax Officer for both the assessment years under consideration, based on the balance-sheet figures of the company for the relevant years. This may be done while passing an order in conformity with the directions of this court. The assessees as well as the Department will be given an opportunity to place correct workings. The Tribunal, after working out the correct figures, may grant appropriate relief to the assessees, if called for. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs. Mr. Swamy, learned counsel for the assessees, made an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, pointing out that there is a conflict of judicial opinion and it has to be resolved by the Supreme Court. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, we certify this to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 29(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
-
1988 (3) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeals, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... more attention while passing such orders, much of the judicial time can be saved. In this view of the matter, I am obliged to allow these writ petitions on this limited ground only and it should not be understood that because of this decision, the appellate authorities are obliged to grant absolute stay in all cases. It is entirely left to their discretion to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the authorities concerned to take up the stay applications on file and pass speaking orders bearing in mind the above principles laid down by the courts, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such orders are passed on the stay applications in all these cases, the collection of tax and penalty shall stand stayed. There will be no order as to costs. Finally, may add that the best way to safeguard the interests of public revenue is to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible.
-
1988 (3) TMI 14 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, New Industrial Undertaking, Precedents, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... a question of law regarding it as a precedent sub silentio . However, I agree that as a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. H. Sugar Mills case 1980 125 ITR 293, has explained its earlier decision in Travancore-Cochin Chemicals case 1977 106 ITR 900, which was also a decision rendered by a three-judge Bench, and has answered a question similar to the one arising for consideration in this case to the effect that the expenditure was a revenue expenditure, the said decision, being a later one, is binding on this court, as held by the Full Bench of this court in Govindanaik s case, AIR 1980 Kar 92. Subject to my disagreement on the question of this court applying the principle of precedent sub silentio to a decision of the Supreme Court on a question of law and in this case to the decision in Travancore Cochin Chemicals case 1977 106 ITR 900 (SC), I agree to the answer furnished by Balakrishna J. to the question referred for our opinion at the instance of the assessee.
....
|
