|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 283 Records
-
1989 (2) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Export Market Development Allowance, Liability To Pay Damages, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... unal in the light of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated December 28, 1981. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of the said circular to the extent the said circular has given effect to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in J. Hemchand and Co. s case. So we decline to answer the question referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue, but at the same time, direct the Tribunal to restore the appeal to its file to the above limited extent and adjudicate on the question regarding the entitlement to the weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act, in the light of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated December 28, 1981, to the extent the said circular had given effect to J. Hemchand and Co. s case. The income tax references are disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (2) TMI 22 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment, Association Of Persons, Notice ... ... ... ... ..... ion of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mangat Ram Hazari Mal v. CIT 1968 67 ITR 788. In this case, a return was filed by a firm. Registration was refused and an assessment was made treating it as an unregistered firm. On appeal, the Tribunal took the view that the assessee was not a firm at all and assessed it in the status of an association of persons. This was contended to be bad But the High Court held, on reference, that the Tribunal did have the power to uphold an order changing the status of an assessee and that there was no illegality or infirmity in that. For the above reasons, we answer both the questions referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs. Learned counsel for the assessee makes an oral request for grant of certificate under section 261 of the Income-tax Act. We do not, however, think that this is a fit case to be certified under section 261 of the Incometax Act. Oral request is accordingly rejected.
-
1989 (2) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Business Expenditure, Business Loss, Commission, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... . In view of the fact that these letters were filed for the first time before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and he noticed that they required verification and due consideration and had remanded the matter so that, inter alia, these could be verified, it would appear to us that reliance on this material without due verification raises a question of law. Consequently, we reframe question No. 2 as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in permitting deduction of Rs. 17,398 on the basis of the letters dated March 24, 1976, and November 3, 1977, produced for the first time, without due verification of the said letters ? Accordingly, we reject the reference application with regard to question No. 1, but we direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer question No. 2 as reframed for the decision of this court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... dered as information justifying the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147(b) of the Act. That leaves for consideration the decision in Murugappan (M. A.) v.. CWT 1985 153 ITR 626 (Mad), relied I on by learned counsel for the Revenue. In that case, though the assessment under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was reopened, it was done on the basis that the Wealth-tax Officer proceeded to give relief to the assessee even beyond what was claimed by him and further that an exempted item of asset had been treated as a debt deductible. It was this factual position which was pointed out that was held to constitute information within the meaning of section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In our view, that decision cannot have any application at all on the facts and circumstances of this case. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will have the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1989 (2) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Litigation Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ven point of time. No evidence was laid to show that the readership will remain constant over a larger number of years. Mr. Mitra has not shown how the assessee will derive any enduring benefit from the market survey. The expenditure incurred was incidental to the carrying on of the business. There is no doubt that the knowledge derived from the market survey will help the assessee to earn larger profits. But, in the facts of this case, this expenditure cannot be said to have brought into existence anything of enduring benefit to the assessee in the sense a capital asset endures, nor can it be said that this expenditure has resulted in improving the profit-making apparatus of the company. Under these circumstances, question No. 2 must also be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, both the qustions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1989 (2) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... as known what properties were given to the deities in equal shares, then the first proviso to section 41 was inapplicable. The Tribunal has followed the principle of law laid down by this court in that case and held that where there were no specifications of shares of the deities, they took in equal shares. The assessments should be made separately in the hands of the deities. We do not find anything wrong in law in the principle followed by the Tribunal. Mr. Moitra, appearing for the Revenue, has argued that there is material difference between the provisions of section 41 of the 1922 Act and section 164 of the 1961 Act, but in the context of the facts of this case, this argument is irrelevant. Hence, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to question No. 1, it is not necessary to give an answer to question No. 2, which is returned unanswered. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1989 (2) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... nce. This being a case of imposition of penalty, the onus lies on the Department to bring sufficient material on record to justify the order of penalty. The Tribunal s finding is that there is no evidence on record to that effect. The admission of the assessee which had been rejected by the Commissioner ultimately, had been duly considered by the Tribunal. Apart from this admission which was duly considered by the Tribunal, admittedly, no other evidence was brought for imposition of penalty. The finding of fact of the Tribunal that there was no evidence other than what had been admitted by the assessee to show that the disputed amount represented the assessee s income has not been challenged as perverse. In view of the findings made by the Tribunal and in view of the observations made by the Tribunal, as set out hereinabove, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1989 (2) TMI 16 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by certify that the profits (or loss, if any) of the previous year were divided or credited as shown in section B of the Schedule and that the information given above and in the attached Schedule is correct. Under the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the relevant recital in the application for registration is as follows We do hereby certify that the profits (or loss, if any) of the (previous year were/will be/divided or credited period up to the date of dissolution were/will be) shown in the Schedule and that the information given above and in the Schedule is correct. In view of the aforesaid provision, the Tribunal was right in holding that failure to distribute the loss suffered by the assessee among the parties would not disentitle the assessee-firm to registration. Our answer to the question referred to this court by the Tribunal is, therefore, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1989 (2) TMI 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Salary, Standard Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... of each salary separately. The question is whether he is entitled to standard deduction separately in respect of each salary or whether both the salaries received by him should be aggregated. This is precisely the situation provided for by Explanation 1 which reads thus Explanation 1. -For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause. In view of the specific language of Explanation 1, it has to be held that the standard deduction should be computed with reference to the aggregate salary received by the assessee for each assessment year and that such deduction should in no case exceed the amount specified under clause (i) of section 16. Reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
HUF, Partial Partition In HUF, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the Wealth-tax Act, partial partitions, which have taken place after December 31, 1978, would also be included, yet, by reason of the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes No. 281 of 1980, it had been clarified that even though section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act had come into force with effect from April 1, 1980, the provisions thereof would be applicable in relation to the assessment year 1980-81 and the subsequent years and not to the earlier assessment years. We are concerned in these cases with the assessment years 1979-80 and even according to the Circular of the Board referred to earlier, the amended provisions of section 20A cannot be made applicable to the assessees in respect of the assessment year 1979-80. In that view, the Tribunal was quite right in declining to refer the question of law. We are also of the view that no referable question of law arises for consideration out of the order of the Tribunal. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... nted out the error in the figures mentioned in the question. The correct computation of the figures has been given by the Tribunal in its statement of case in paragraph 6 which is as under That the figures mentioned in the question sought to be referred are not correct figures as would be clear from the order of the Tribunal itself dated April 16, 1970. The correct figures which are under dispute are as under Expenditure incurred during Rs. 2,48,516 (as would be clear from the period of erection up to August para 3 of the order of the Tribunal). 15, 1956. In that view of the matter, the question of law is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee with this clarification that the figures mentioned in the question are not to be treated as correct and binding on any of the parties, but the figures given by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of the statement of the case must be treated as correct. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (2) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeals, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... . The Tribunal came to the conclusion, considering the provisions of section 62(1)(a), that if any objection was raised to the valuation made by the Controller, then an appeal was entertainable. In this case, the dispute is with regard to the valuation of the shares of Williamson Magon and Co. Ltd. and, hence, an appeal has been preferred with respect to the valuation made by the Assistant Controller under section 62(1)(a)(i). The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appeal preferred by the accountable person to the Controller could not be dismissed in limine and that the Appellate Controller was competent and was perfectly justified in entertaining the appeal. Having regard to the provisions of section 62, we are of the view that the Tribunal has correctly dealt with the issues raised before it. In that view of the matter, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. There will be no order as to costs. BABOO LALL JAIN J. -I agree.
-
1989 (2) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income, Reference, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... acharyya, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has come forward with an argument that, in the calculation of relief, account has not been taken of the amount which had to be paid to the French company. According to him, the entire payment made by the Tata Iron and Steel Co. cannot be the basis for computing relief under section 80MM. That part of the payment which was made to the French company will have to be excluded for the purpose of computation of the relief. This argument was not raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal. This controversy also does not come within the ambit of the questions raised. We decline to go into this controversy at this stage. Under these circumstances, questions Nos. 2 and 3 must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. All the three questions referred by the Tribunal are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (2) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Gratuity, Route Permits ... ... ... ... ..... 78 and 1978-79 and the first question for the assessment year 1979-86 in T. C. P. No. 561 of 1986, the only question in T. C. P. No. 562 of 1986, the first question in T. C. P. No. 563 of 1986 and the only question in T. C. P. No. 14 of 1988 cannot be stated to be referable questions of law. Consequently, those questions need not be referred. However, with reference to the second question for the assessment year 1979-80 in T. C. P. No. 561 of 1986 as well as the second question in T. C. P. No. 563 of 1986, we find that we have already directed a reference by an order dated December 19, 1983. Indeed, it is also seen that the Tribunal in R. A. Nos. 532 and 533 of 1981, by order dated September 24, 1984, has referred a similar question for the opinion of this court. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state a case referring the second question for the assessment year 1979-80 in T. C. P. Nos. 561 and 563 of 1986. The petitions, in other respects, will stand dismissed. No costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Bonus, Business Expenditure, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ibunal examined the correctness of the claims. Details were produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has recorded that it felt satisfied that the assessee-company had correctly provided for bonus payable during the three years under reference to its employees. In view of this finding, we are unable to hold that the Tribunal should have given any further direction in the matter. Therefore, the first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The second question relates to carry forward of development rebate. This question is concluded by a judgment of this court in the case of West Laikdihi Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1973 87 ITR 501. This judgment was followed in the case of CIT v. Kelvin jute Co. Ltd. 1986 159 ITR 770 (Cal). This question also is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Both the questions are 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 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Packing Credit Interest, Weighted Deduction U/S 35B ... ... ... ... ..... urred wholly and exclusively for the specified purposes. We are of the view that, on the facts of this case, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in coming to the conclusion that weighted deduction was not allowable in respect of the various items of deductions claimed. Therefore, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 2 is concluded by a judgment of this High Court in the case of Molins of India Ltd. v. CIT 1983 144 ITR 317 (Cal). This question is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. It has been stated on behalf of the assessee that, in respect of question No. 2, certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court has already been granted under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the case of Molins of India Ltd. v. CIT 1983 144 ITR 317 (Cal). Let a certificate be issued accordingly, certifying that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. BABOO LALL JAIN J. - I agree.
-
1989 (2) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... ness activities of the assessee and the nature of agency business, the amount of loss incurred during the course of such business activities must be allowed as deduction in computing the income of the assessee s business. If any amount is recovered subsequently, then that will have to be treated as a revenue receipt of that year. Next it was argued that such payment by the assessee will be treated as a capital receipt in the hands of New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Even if this payment is treated as a capital receipt by the jute mills, for the assessee it was revenue expenditure incurred in the course of carrying on of the business. The loss fell upon the assessee, in the course of trading. In the facts of this case, we see no reason why this amount is not to be allowed as deduction while assessing the income of the assessee. The question is, therefore, 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 6 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Gift Tax Act, Partner From Firm, Retirement Of Partner ... ... ... ... ..... eived amounts due to him. The Appellate Tribunal has held that, on the facts of this case, the firm has no goodwill. This is largely a question of fact. It is not a case where the Tribunal has omitted to consider any relevant fact or considered any irrelevant fact in reaching the conclusion that no goodwill is created or involved in the case even though the business was carried on for the period for which the licence was obtained. The finding entered by the Appellate Tribunal, in this regard, is purely a finding of fact and it is not open to any objection. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law. We answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, may be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1989 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Tribunal uphold that loss in sale of shares was a Trading loss - order of tribunal is justified - no question of law arises - it is not necessary for Tribunal to state in its judgment specifically or in express words that it has taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances
-
1989 (2) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Cash Credits - Notice u/s 148 - Admittedly, the notice has been issued beyond a period of four years and, therefore, the notice itself was beyond the time provided under the law.
....
|
