Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 293 of 293 Records
-
1988 (3) TMI 13
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... t shows ingredients of the above offences. As stated earlier, while the counterfoils seized during the raid are in the names of private parties, all the cheques are in the names of the fifth petitioner. All the cheques have admittedly been cashed by the fifth petitioner who is the broker. The statements of the petitioners as to what the fifth petitioner did with the money are mutually contradictory. It is the trial court alone which is competent to go into the truth or falsity of the statements and decide which of the conflicting versions is true. That would be beyond the limited scope of these proceedings. In the result, the petition is dismissed. I hasten to add that whatever observations that have been made in this order, touching on the merits of the case, have been made only for the purpose of appreciating the legal contentions put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners and they are in no way to adversely affect the interests of the petitioners during the trial.
-
1988 (3) TMI 12
... ... ... ... ..... ensatory allowance. Whatever tax has already been deducted during the financial year 1987-88 from the salaries of the officers and staff of the insurance company shall be refunded to each of them within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. If, however, in the meantime, the insurance company has already deposited the amount of tax deducted at source on the city compensatory allowance or similar allowance, the Income-tax Department shall refund the same against the tax payable by each of the officers and staff of the insurance company during the financial year 1988-89. In the event any decision is rendered by the Supreme Court setting aside the decision of this court or any other court taking similar view, the Income-tax Department will proceed to recover the tax refunded to the officers and staff of the insurance company in terms of this order in accordance with law. Parties will act on the signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this judgment.
-
1988 (3) TMI 11
... ... ... ... ..... lowance or any allowance in the nature of city compensatory allowance. Whatever tax has already been deducted during the financial year 1987-88 from the salaries of the officers and staff of the bank shall be refunded to each of them within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. If, however, in the meantime, the bank has already deposited the amount of tax deducted at source on the city compensatory allowance or similar allowance, the Income-tax Officer shall refund the same or adjust the same against the tax payable by each of the officers and staff of the bank during the financial year 1988-89. In the event any decision is rendered by the Supreme Court setting aside the decision of this court or any other court taking similar view, the Income-tax Department will proceed to recover the tax refunded to the officers and staff of the bank in terms of this order in accordance with law. Parties will act on the signed copy of the operative part of this judgment.
-
1988 (3) TMI 10
Tax Clearence Certificate ... ... ... ... ..... proposed conveyance are acting on behalf of respondent No. 1. The said three trustees and the said three partnership firms in whose names the said property was initially purchased are confirming parties to the said deed of conveyance. As such, they cannot be held or deemed to be the transferor of the property in favour of the Indian Bank against the tenor of the proposed deed of conveyance. In any event, all the trustees have produced before us income-tax clearance certificates which they have obtained from their respective Income-tax Officers for the purpose of obtaining bank loans. Appellant No. 1, the Income-tax Officer, in the facts, is not entitled to withhold the certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of respondent No. 1. This is not a case where a clear or obvious fraud is being sought to be perpetrated. For the reasons as aforesaid, the order dated February 1, 1988, does not appear to be erroneous and does not call for any interference.
-
1988 (3) TMI 9
Precedents, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... considerable force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the assessee that the Division Bench in T. V. Srinivasan v. CWT 1985 152 ITR 599 (Mad) has omitted to consider the vital matter as to how, on the relevant valuation date, the excess advance tax which could be ascertained only after the completion of the assessment, which would naturally be only after the relevant valuation date, could relate back to the valuation date and such excess tax could be considered to be an asset of the assessee on the date of valuation. Hence, we are of the opinion that the decision of the aforesaid Division Bench of this court requires to be reconsidered. Thus, we are satisfied that the question of law raised in the petition needs to be referred to this court for consideration and that the petition raises a referable question of law. Hence, we direct the Tribunal to forward to this court a statement of the case referring the question of law set out at the commencement of this order.
-
1988 (3) TMI 8
Change Of Law, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... notice that is impugned by the petitioner bank in this writ petition by seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to forbear from proceeding with the sale of the goods attached. The point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for granting the prayer of the petitioner-bank. The sale notice was issued on April 25, 1981, and the same is in accordance with the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The hypothecation in favour of the bank is not a secured debt which could be treated in preference to the Government dues that can be recovered as a prior charge if the goods hypothecated are available for being proceeded against and attached for tax arrears. On a careful and anxious consideration of the arguments advanced on either side, it is seen that there are no grounds for granting the relief prayed for in the writ petition. There being no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 7
Business Expenditure, Income ... ... ... ... ..... of the case, we are thus of the opinion that the following questions of law arise out of the Tribunal s order (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 25,000 spent on the managing director s house was an allowable deduction by ignoring the material fact that these expenses never related to the assessee s business ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, was correct in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 32,33,116 being the excess price realised by the assessee on sugar was not a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee-company and, as such, not taxable in its hands ? We, accordingly, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up statement of the case and refer the questions of law indicated above for the opinion of this court. The application is, thus, partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 6
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... er of asset in the circumstances specified in the first part, then the provisions of section 154 of the Act, without anything more, shall apply. We cannot, therefore, accept Shri Swamy s plea that for the purpose of passing an order under section 155(5) not only the conditions specified therein should be satisfied but also the conditions specified in section 154 of the Act. In the result, we answer question No. 1 referred to us in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We also answer question No. 2 in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. After the judgment is delivered, learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Swamy, makes an oral application for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we consider this to be a fit case under section 261 of the Income-tax Act for grant of leave. Leave granted accordingly.
-
1988 (3) TMI 5
Appeals, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... l, the powers of the Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. In the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, the controversy which has led to the amendment has been noted. Therefore, it is argued by the petitioner that this Finance Bill has really recognised the fact that no revision was possible before this amendment was made effective. I am unable to uphold this contention. The proposed amendment will not have the effect of introducing something which was not already there in the Act. Amendments, very often, are clarificatory. In my opinion, the proposed amendment has tried to make explicit what was already implicit in the Act. The writ petition is dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the petitioner s right to get depreciation. That question is left open to be decided by the appropriate authority.
-
1988 (3) TMI 4
Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e company should not be deducted from the amount representing the provision for taxation for the assessment year 1973-74, on a proper interpretation of rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules, read with the Explanation II(ii)(e) of the Wealthtax Rules ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the National Defence Certificates for Rs. 70,000 held by the assessee was exempt under section 5(1) read with section 5 (1A) of the Wealth tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1973-74 ? As far as the first question is concerned, it is covered by the decision of this court in CWT v. N. Krishnan 1986 162 ITR 309. Following the ratio of the said judgment, we answer the said question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The second question is also covered by the decision of this court in K. S. Ayodhyanath v. CWT 1983 141 ITR 309. Following the ratio of the said judgment, we answer the second question also in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1988 (3) TMI 3
Accounting, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... s it is not denied that the provision of Rs. 50,000 represents a correct provision under the Employees State Insurance Act concerning the statutory liability relating to the assessment year under consideration, it is not possible to resist the assessee s claim for deduction in view of the system of accounting employed by them. If, eventually, the assessee succeeds finally and no liability under the Employees State Insurance Act is affirmed, then, it will be open to the Department to invoke the provision of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act and bring to assessment the amount or amounts allowed as deduction remitted in appeal. Having regard to the above, we consider the Tribunal to be wholly justified in the view it has taken that the provision of Rs. 50,000 made by the assessee towards the Employees State Insurance contribution was an allowable deduction. The question referred is answered in the affirmative that is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 2
... ... ... ... ..... of persons and, consequently, the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in C. Krishna Prasad s case 1974 97 ITR 493 cannot at all be applied to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly distinguished the said decision and held that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case. A similar view has been taken by other High Courts. We may only mention the latest decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Seth Tulsidas Bolumal v. CIT 1988 170 ITR 1. It is not necessary to dilate upon the same in detail. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, it must be held that the claim of the Department that the assessee should be assessed as an individual has to be repelled and was rightly repelled by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the questions referred to us are answered in the affirmative. They are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is, accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1988 (3) TMI 1
Question is of validity of search warrant - articles and money seized have now been released and are no longer in the possession of the petitioner hence no useful purpose will be served by entertaining this Special Leave Petition - however, that it is open to the income-tax authorities to take such other proceedings against the respondent as are available under the Income-tax Act
....
|