|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 283 Records
-
1989 (2) TMI 83 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... h the words hosiery and rope that follow it. Such an interpretation, though plausible on the face of it, cannot stand scrutiny when seen in the light of the next entry, i.e., 33, where specific mention is made of jute rope . If the word rope in entry 32 were to be read without any qualification, the words jute rope in entry 33 would clearly be redundant. The Legislature cannot be assumed to have used words without meaning or purpose. On a plain reading and interpretation of entry 32, therefore, it must be read and understood to cover textiles made wholly or mainly of cotton. Woollen hosiery would thus not fall under this entry. This being so, 15 development rebate is all that the assessee can be held entitled to in respect of the machinery in question, under the residuary clause (iv) (b) of section 33 (1)(b)(B) of the Act. This reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 82 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re of the opinion that the question decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeals giving rise to these applications does give rise to a question of law. Three questions have been proposed in these applications. In our opinion, question No. 1 is sufficient to cover the entire controversy involved in these references and the remaining two questions are in the nature of arguments in support of the first question. The question of law which arises from the Tribunal s order is as follows Whether, in law and on facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the gross maintainable rent should be adopted on the basis of annual reasonable rent as per the U. P. Rent Legislation ? Accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the above question for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1976-77 for the opinion of this court. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 81 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... propriate directions which will enable the Income-tax Officer to set right the revised order dated October 31, 1980, by passing a proper order, taking within its fold the admitted income included in the order of assessment dated March 7, 1978. We are afraid that it is not within our province to issue any such direction at this stage. Counsel for the Revenue brought to our notice the decision of the Allahabad High Court in ITO v. S.B. Singar Singh and Sons 1970 75 ITR 646 and contended that the Income-tax Officer has got inherent power or jurisdiction to correct the mistake committed by him, even apart from section 154 of the Act. At this stage, we do not propose to deal at length with this plea. Nothing that is stated in this judgment will deter the Revenue from bringing to tax the admitted income in accordance with law. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (2) TMI 80 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se, applications. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. The question whether an assessee had sufficient cause in not furnishing the return in time, in our opinion, is essentially one of fact. All that has been urged before us was that the Tribunal was not right in following its earlier order, since, on facts, the case for these two years was mutually distinguishable. Learned counsel for the Revenue was, however, unable to point out any distinction to substantiate its contention. That apart, the contention of the assessee was that she laboured under the belief that she had no taxable wealth and the returns were filed as, on the valuation of immovable property, it was found that her net wealth was marginally above the wealth-tax exemption limit. In our considered opinion, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law. These applications are without any merit and are, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 79 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessment but is to be carried forward, the question of determining the balance business loss will arise. The assessment is, therefore, set aside to be made afresh. A reading of the entire order of the Commissioner clearly goes to show that he did not furnish his opinion or consider the cited cases or the argument raised and merely observed that these were the points which deserved consideration and after setting aside the order of the Income-tax Officer, issued a direction for making assessment afresh. This is not permissible under the provisions contained in section 263 of the Act. The Commissioner had to come to a firm decision that the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Since no decision about the erroneous nature of the order was firmly taken, the Tribunal was right in vacating the order. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee, that is, in the affirmative, with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 78 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... 00 was rightly assessed as income from undisclosed sources in the hands of the assessee. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are pure findings of fact which are based on appreciation of evidence. The view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view on the evidence that was placed before it. In our opinion, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law on the findings recorded by it. Coming to the second question, the only controversy raised is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in taking the view that 50 of the income from the sale of potatoes stored in the cold storage by the assessee was exempt as income from agriculture. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in that regard also are concluded by the findings of fact and in our opinion do not give rise to any question of law. This application is without any merit and is accordingly rejected.
-
1989 (2) TMI 77 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... them. We do not find any justification for this apprehension nor do we consider it necessary to admit this petition and to decide it on merits, as we are of the opinion that since the application is pending before opposite party No. 1, he shall decide the same in accordance with law. In order to protect the interest of the petitioners, however, we direct that while disposing of the petitioners application, the opposite party shall consider the objection of the petitioners in respect of the gold and further, he shall open the tin box containing gold which was seized during the raid and the Commissioner shall also get a list prepared and supply it to the petitioners before the objection is decided. We further make it clear that while deciding the objection under section 132(12), the Commissioner shall not be influenced or persuaded by the order passed under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act and the assessment made against Mr. Shah. This petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
1989 (2) TMI 76 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nced during the course of the assessment proceedings. But the Tribunal, dealing with this contention, found as follows It was the assessee s contention in the grounds of appeal that the penalty proceedings were initiated only on December 31, 1985, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has stated that they were initiated at the time of passing the assessment order on December 28, 1984. This has not been denied by the assessee s representative. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in paragraph 5 of his order, stated thus On going through the assessment order, I find that the Income-tax Officer has clearly mentioned that penalty proceedings are initiated. This statement of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not been denied by the assessee s representative before the Tribunal also. Hence, there is no merit in this contention as well. We, therefore, hold that no referable questions of law arise out of the Tribunal s order. The original petition is dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the view that there is no justification for the Department to hold back the amount of Rs. 4,59,325 out of the total consideration for which the property has been acquired by the Department. If there are arrears due to the Department, the Department should have given a notice and an opportunity to the petitioner. That has not been done. It seems that the petitioner has also been claiming refund of certain amounts from the Department. I am of the view that it has got nothing to do with the issues raised before me. In view of this, I direct the first respondent to pay the balance of Rs. 4,59,325 to the petitioner within four weeks from today. It is also open to the Department to give an opportunity to the petitioner with regard to the arrears they are claiming. But on date, since the statute has not been complied with by the Department, have no option except to allow this writ petition as prayed for. In the result, this writ petition will stand allowed with costs of Rs. 500.
-
1989 (2) TMI 74 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... elevant period, there was no approved gratuity fund and the question of contributing towards that fund did not arise nor was any liability created during the previous year so as to make a provision for payment of gratuity. Both the ingredients being absent in this case, deduction could not be allowed. The view we have taken finds support from a decision of the apex court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 585 (SC). The relevant observations are as follows (headnote) The embargo under clause (a) is on deduction of amounts provided for future use in the year of account for meeting the ultimate liability to payment of gratuity. Clause (b)(i) excludes from the operation of clause (a) contribution to an approved gratuity fund and amount provided for or set apart for payment of gratuity which would be payable during the year of account. Accordingly, we answer the referred question in favour of the Revenue in the affirmative, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 73 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Deductions From Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... IT v. Madras Motors (P.) Ltd. 1984 150 ITR 150, held that in view of section 80A, section 80A(2) and section 80B(5) occurring in Chapter VI-A, if the total income, as computed under section 80B(5) of the Act is nil , then no relief could be granted based on the other sections in view of the limitations contained in section 80A(2) according to which, the aggregate amount of deduction under Chapter VI-A shall not, in any case, exceed the gross total income of the assessee and if the gross total income of the assessee is determined as nil , then, there is no question of any deduction being allowed under Chapter VI-A as that will clearly exceed the gross total income of the assessee. We are of the view that the principle laid down in the decisions referred to above would be applicable in this case also. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1989 (2) TMI 72 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... se, because of wide divergence of facts between that case and this case ? (2) Whether, in law and the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? From the very frame of the question, it is clear that the Tribunal has based its opinion on decisions given by this court. Since the question of law stands already decided by this court, no question of law can be said to arise and, on facts, it has been found that the basic requirement for assuming jurisdiction under section 263 was missing as the Commissioner did not either set out the points for inquiry nor did he record any reason or refer to any material as to how the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The application for directing the Tribunal, therefore, to submit statement of case on the proposed questions of law is rejected.
-
1989 (2) TMI 71 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... or child out of his or her share in the converted property on partition shall be includible in the hands of a member of the smaller Hindu undivided family. In this case, there is no finding of fact that any property was allocated on partition to the spouse or minor child of the assessee. There is no finding that the income which is sought to be included in the hands of the assessee was income received directly or indirectly by the spouse or the minor child at all. If a smaller Hindu undivided family on partition has been allocated portion of the property of the larger Hindu undivided family, then the income derived from such property cannot be included in the hands of the karta of the smaller Hindu undivided family in his individual assessment under the provisions of section 64(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the premises, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BABOO LALL JAIN J. -I agree.
-
1989 (2) TMI 70 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for filing the return by the assessee at its request up to November 30, 1965, the same state of affairs continued even thereafter and that would justify the delayed filing of the return by the assessee. On the finding rendered by the Tribunal in para 3 of its order that the assessee had failed to adduce any reasonable cause for the delay, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that, the penalty imposed cannot be sustained, is, to say the least, totally perverse and unsupported by the materials on record. Further, it is seen that there was total absence of any explanation whatever for the delay that had occurred after November 30, 1965, and, in such a situation, the Tribunal fell into an error in holding that the assessee is not guilty of any default warranting the levy of penalty. On a careful consideration of the facts and the circumstances, we answer the questions referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 69 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... mmissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act. That direction having been set aside by the Tribunal, the order of reassessment passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the decision of the Tribunal setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act is the subject-matter of a reference which is pending before this court. If that reference is answered in favour of the Revenue, then the Tribunal would pass such order as would be necessary to dispose of the case conformably to the judgment of this court. But till then, it cannot be held that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1989 (2) TMI 68 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Object Of General Public Utility... ... ... ... ... ..... her it is to carry out a charitable purpose or to earn profit ? If the predominant object is to carry out a charitable purpose and not to earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from its activity. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of this court in CIT v. A. P. Police Welfare Society 1984 148 ITR 287, where the A. P. Police Welfare Society was held to be a society whose primary and dominant object was advancement of an object of general public utility within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the object for which the assessee-corporation has been established is charitable and, therefore, it can be considered to be a public charitable institution within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. We also hold that its income is liable to be excluded under and in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Act. Reference answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 67 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Inclusions In Total Income, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... d of an assessee from a partnership firm is referable to the fact of admission of that child to the benefits of the said partnership firm, then such income is includible in the total income of the assessee. As held by this court in CIT v. Smt. Nirmala Devi 1987 166 ITR 253, the question of source of investment in the firm by the minor is not relevant or decisive for making the income of the minor includible in the total income of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not right in holding that the minor son of the assessee represented the Hindu undivided family in the partnership firm and that the income of the minor son of the assessee from his admission to the benefits of the partnership was assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family Our answers to the questions referred to this court by the Tribunal are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1989 (2) TMI 66 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Domestic Electric Appliances, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... e Dictionary, (i) an instrument, apparatus or device for a particular purpose or use (ii) a piece of equipment, usually operated electrically, especially for use in house or for performance of domestic chores, as a refrigerator, washing machine, toaster, etc. Fluorescent tubes manufactured by the assessee are articles of general use not necessarily confined to domestic use. Moreover, it cannot be held that the said article is used for performing the routine task of a housekeeper or of a person in charge of hotels, restaurants, hostels, offices, educational institutions and hospitals. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that fluorescent tubes were not electric appliances and that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1989 (2) TMI 65 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt. All the assessment proceedings in relation to the assessee from 1962-63 onwards as referred to in paragraph 18 of the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner shows that the assessee was in a position to command substantial funds which had not been disclosed to the Department and in order to bring to account at least a part of such amounts, the assessee had purchased the prize winning ticket at least for a lakh of rupees. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances and also the available materials, we are of the view that the Tribunal was quite right in holding that the Department has established concealment of income by the assessee to the tune of one lakh of rupees and that penalty is also exigible. We also find that only the minimum penalty had been levied on the assessee. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1989 (2) TMI 64 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Offences, Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ss of exhibits P-1 and P-2 by filing a counter-affidavit in this proceeding. As stated earlier, the first respondent cannot be presumed to be ignorant of the provisions contained in section 194C of the Income-tax Act. The result is that the Electricity Board must be deemed to have deducted 2 from the amounts due to the petitioner by way of income-tax deductible at Source. After having deducted the income-tax, the first respondent cannot refuse to issue the certificate in Form 19C under the Income-tax Rules. In view of what has been stated above, I direct the first respondent to issue certificate in Form 19C for the amount of Rs. 19,593 to the petitioner to enable him to get credit for that amount from the Income-tax Department. The above certificate should be issued as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is allowed. Issue carbon copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.
....
|
