Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 274 Records
-
1989 (1) TMI 114
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that all the payments on the same day were to be added to consider if the individual payments in cash exceeding Rs. 2,500 were made and were caught by the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid two questions of law for the opinion of this court. The application is, therefore allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1989 (1) TMI 113
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... the following question for the opinion of this court 1. Whether, on the facts and in view of the legal position as mentioned in the statement of facts, the Tribunal could be said to be legally correct in setting aside the order passed under section 263 of the Incometax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax? The application is partly allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 112
Inclusions In Total Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... earned on accumulated profits arising from the firm itself. In short, the question to be answered in each case would be whether the amount which is earning interest is in essence and in truth a deposit or a loan or whether it is contribution to capital or accumulated profits arising, from the firm itself. Since we have held that the sums of Rs., 10,000 each brought in by the minors was in the nature of contribution to capital and also because the accumulated profits arose from the very firm, they cannot be treated as deposits or loans, in the facts and circumstances of this case. They arose to the minors because of their character, namely, as members admitted to the benefits of partnership. It should also be noted that just as in the case before the Supreme Court, the accumulated profits were permitted by the minors to be used by the firm. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1989 (1) TMI 111
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... and a liability de futuro, which for the time being is only contingent and the former is deductible, but not the latter. Though this decision has been rendered with reference to the provisions of section 40A(7) of the Act, the principles enunciated therein prior to the introduction of section 40A(7) of the Act would be equally applicable to the present case as well. We are, therefore, of the view that as per the principles laid down in the decisions relied on by learned counsel for the Revenue, the liability to pay retrenchment compensation is only in the nature of a contingent liability and there is also no satisfactory method of evaluating or quantifying the value of that liability in any particular year of account and cannot, therefore, appropriately form the subject-matter of a claim for deduction. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Revenue is entitled to recover the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. One set.
-
1989 (1) TMI 110
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... elay under section 246 (sic) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not entertaining the additional ground taken before it at the time of hearing ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) made correctly computation of the capital gain without assigning any reasons for not allowing any cost of improvement to the assessee? The application is partly allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 109
... ... ... ... ..... draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court Whether, under the facts and circumstances of case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in finding income of house property 64, Lajpat Nagar, Varanasi, assessable in the assessee s hands ? The application is, therefore allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 108
... ... ... ... ..... llowing reframed question for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts found by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is not entitled to any relief under sections 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The application is partly allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 107
... ... ... ... ..... ) Whether, in the absence of execution of a document and its registration by the Co-operative Society, in favour of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in assessing the value of said assets in the hands of the assessee when his beneficial interest therein had passed to his wife ? (3) Whether execution of a document by the Co-operative Society in favour of the assessee s wife in 1983 with retrospective effect complied with substitution of her name, will not pass the title in house No. 64, Lajpat Nagar, Varanasi, and the same belonged to her ? The application is, therefore, allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 106
Business, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... nce and also the incometax of Rs. 133 included under the salary. We are not persuaded to hold that the disallowance made by the authorities is, in any manner, unreasonable or unfair. We now proceed to consider the claim for waiver of interest in a sum of Rs. 30,036 made by the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1969-70. We have earlier held that the business of the assessee had been stopped and that the assessee was making attempts to realise the outstandings. Further, it is seen that it was admitted before the assessing authority that no action at all had been taken by the assessee for the recovery of interest from the parties in respect of whom interest was waived as claimed. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim for allowance in sum of Rs. 30,036 towards waiver of interest for the assessment year 1969-70 has also to fail. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us against the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs in this reference.
-
1989 (1) TMI 105
Burden Of Proof, Deduction, Litigation Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... way of expenditure for execution proceedings and to defend the suit. The further plea of the assessee praying for time was also rightly rejected by the Tribunal. Since it is evident that the assessee had ample opportunity before the order of assessment was made and after the assessment order till the matter was heard and disposed of by the Tribunal on January 10, 1978, we are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal negativing the plea of the assessee praying for further time is justified. In the light of the above premises, we hold that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal does not merit interference. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We answer question No. 2 also in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (1) TMI 104
... ... ... ... ..... the case and refer the following reframed question for the opinion of this court 1. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 1,33,800, Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 3,043 in the hands of the asses see ? The application is accordingly allowed in part.
-
1989 (1) TMI 103
Remand To ITO ... ... ... ... ..... following question for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in remanding the case when the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has deleted the addition made on the basis of the report of estimate of stock found by the inspector ? The application is allowed partly.
-
1989 (1) TMI 102
... ... ... ... ..... ection 3 of the Act need not necessarily commence from the 1 St day of April every year, but may vary, according to the choice of the assessee, and it is only with a view to clear any confusion that may result in construing the approval orders granting exemption that the date April 1, 1965, had been specified as a clear, unambiguous and definite date without reference to the previous year. We do not see any basis what ever for restricting the scope of the approval orders by importing the idea of previous year commencing from April 1, 1965. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was right in its interpretation of the orders of the Government of India referred to earlier and in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the order of, approval for both the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. One set.
-
1989 (1) TMI 101
Interest Paid By Firm To HUF ... ... ... ... ..... f this court Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the interest paid to the Hindu undivided family of Shri Jageshwar Dayal who was a partner in his individual status, by the firm, was not allowable? The application is partly allowed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 100
Tax Clearence Certificate ... ... ... ... ..... error in taking a notional value of the jewellery. According to it, the Income-tax Officer failed to take notice of the provisions of sections 48 and 52(2) of the Act while computing capital gains in so far as jewellery was concerned. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. Incidentally, both the counsel rely upon the decision in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 996 (SC). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that a question of law does arise for consideration by this court. We, accordingly, direct the Tribunal to draw a statement of the case and to refer the following question Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax Officer was justified in initiating proceedings under section 147(b) of the Act in so far as computation of capital gains in relation to jewellery was concerned ? In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1989 (1) TMI 99
... ... ... ... ..... n the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1984-85, two assessments were made, one on the previous firm up to November 2, 1983, and the other on the succeeding firm. (This is not a case of reconstitution -it is only a case where the business is succeeded to by a new firm). In the circumstances, the authorities were perfectly justified in valuing the closing stock of the previous firm at the market value. This view, consistently taken by the Madras High Court, has been followed by this court in V. C. Venkata Subbaiah Chetty and Sons v. CIT 1988 171 ITR 590. We see no question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal which requires to be referred for the opinion of this court. The income-tax case is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 98
Perquisite, Salary ... ... ... ... ..... David Mitchell v. CIT 1956 30 ITR 701 and of the Bombay High Court in Dilip Kumar Roy v. CIT 1974 94 ITR 1. The tests applied by us in the instant case are in accord with the decisions of the Supreme Court in Krishna Menon s case 1959 35 ITR 48, Dr. K. George Thomas case 1985 156 ITR 412 and Dr. K. George Thomas case 1986 159 ITR 851 and the aforesaid Calcutta and Bombay decisions. In the light of the principle discernible from the aforesaid decisions and in the light of the facts disclosed in these two cases, there is absolutely no doubt in our mind that the surplus remaining with the assessee out of the mass stipends received by him during the relevant previous years constituted his income. We answer the question of law referred to us in both the cases in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (1) TMI 97
Limitation, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... udgment assessment was also made under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, the period of limitation for an assessment under section 147 of the Act pursuant to notice under section 148 of the Act would be governed by section 153(2) of the Act and that, therefore, the order of assessment was not barred by limitation. In that view, the dismissal of the writ petition was affirmed. The view thus taken would also support the conclusion that in a case where notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued, as here, the limitation as provided under section 153(2) of the Act would apply. We, therefore, hold that under section 153(2)(a) of the Act, the revised assessment should have been made on or before March 31, 1974, but having been actually made on September 10, 1976, was clearly time-barred. The Tribunal was right in holding so. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
-
1989 (1) TMI 96
Partnership, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... t the assessees should be assigned the status of a firm . We see no error in the said view. The only further question is, whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation for the year 1979-80 ? As a consequence of holding that the status that should be assigned is that of a. firm , the Appellate Tribunal has held that the firm is entitled to depreciation as the assets were not only owned but also used by the receivers for and on behalf of the firm. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the observations are very wide and it may even mean that the assessee will be entitled to double relief without reckoning the exact depreciation that the assessee is entitled to. All that we need to say is that the assessees will be entitled to depreciation which is in accordance with law. In our view, the questions formulated by the Revenue in Original Petitions Nos. 413 and 571 of 1988 are not referable questions of law. The above three original petitions are dismissed.
-
1989 (1) TMI 95
Interest, Recognised Provident Fund, Reference, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... section 80L of the Act and, therefore, the assessee, cannot claim the benefit of deduction under section 80L of the Act. We may now briefly refer to the decision in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Banerjee 1979 120 ITR 837 (All), relied on by learned counsel for the assessee. That related to a private trust and the distinction pointed out, viz., trustee acting for the benefit of and on behalf of the beneficiary has not been borne in mind. We are, therefore, of the view that that decision cannot be of any assistance to the assessee. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was quite right in its conclusion that the interest received by the assessee in the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 in excess of the rate prescribed in clause (b) of rule 6 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule did not qualify for deduction under section 80L of the Act. We answer this reference accordingly against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. One set.
............
|