|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 263 Records
-
1989 (7) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation, Rectification, Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... would be of no consequence, and for the same reason, the decision, on merits, by the appellate authorities would also be of no consequence and would have to be ignored. This is exactly what the Tribunal has observed in the impugned order. For, if the assessment is barred by time, no effect can be given to the other decision on merits. If, however, the reference of the Department against the order passed in M. A. No. 4 of 1985 succeeds, then the decision on merits of the various appellate authorities would automatically remain. In our opinion, there is no question of law as such arising in this order. Dismissed. We may also note that Mr. Bishamber Lal, counsel for the respondent, contended that in view of the decision in C WT v. Ilia Dalmia 1987 168 ITR 306 (Delhi) and CIT v. Mtt. Ay. S. Ay. Arunachalam Chettiar 1953 23 ITR 180 (SC), no reference is maintainable. For the view which we have already taken, it is not necessary for us to decide this question. Petition dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 63 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Penalty, Question Of Law, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... resent case, were directed to be referred to this court. Following the said decision, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following two questions of law to this court (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circums of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee family did not conceal the particulars of its income by confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in annulling the proceedings of the assessment initiated under section 148 of the Income-tax Act by confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? There will be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 62 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... was justified in holding that development rebate at higher rate of 35 was admissible in relation to the steel unit of the assessee-company or not only the cost of machinery installed in the furnace section, but also on the mill and wire drawing section within the meaning of section 33(1)(b) and items Nos. 1 and 11 of the Fifth Schedule of Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,84,726 made by the Income-tax Officer on account of excess price realised on the sale of sugar ? (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,85,396 on account of development rebate on new electric fittings in the factory area ? Consequently, we call upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to send a statement of the case with regard to the above questions for the opinion of the High Court.
-
1989 (7) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... atable question of law arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on which any direction could be issued to the Tribunal to refer the case for the opinion of this court. The basic question whether the assessee is liable to tax on the interest income on sticky advances is concluded against the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore 1986 158 ITR 102. The questions proposed by the assessee in this regard are academic and do not survive for any further adjudication. On the question of quantum of interest and liability to tax of Rs. 5,60,740, the appellate authorities have remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication without taking any final decision. The questions proposed by the assessee on these aspects do not arise out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the result, both these reference applications are without any substance and are accordingly rejected with costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 60 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the payment of interest of Rs. 7,200 was not to the individual but to the joint Hindu family ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing exclusion of loss of Ganga Sagar Suri and Sons from the computation of the assessable income of the assessee?
-
1989 (7) TMI 59 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Legal Fiction ... ... ... ... ..... er section 56 of the Act as income from other sources in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody 1966 61 ITR 428. In our view, in spite of the introduction of section 176(4) of the Act, in the absence of any deeming provision treating such receipts as income failing under the head Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation , as the assessee had not carried on any profession in any part of the relevant previous year, the said income cannot be taxed under section 28 of the Act nor can such income be taxed under section 56 of the Act as income from other sources. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nalinikant Ambalal Mody 1966 61 ITR 428 will be applicable in spite of the introduction of section 176(4) of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid, the question referred in this reference is 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 (7) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled to full insurance charges on the machinery installed in the premises of JKCM when in assessment year 1975-76, on similar facts, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have confirmed the disallowance to the extent of 50 ? (v) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in confirming the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,11,597 treated as income of the assessee on account of security deposit of cops ? (ix) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,90,055 out of legal charges ? (xii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow depreciation on SSF and tyre cord units at the rate of 1526 as against 10 ? The petition is disposed of. No costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 57 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Accounting, Advance Tax, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, Income, Rebate At Higher Rate, Reference
-
1989 (7) TMI 56 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... f. Apart from it, the Commissioner has clearly stated that all the objection can be raised at the time of regular assessment and directed the Income-tax Officer to decide the same in the regular assessment. Therefore, there cannot be any proceedings against the respondents on the ground that the said document is fabricated. Therefore, in view of the above stated circumstances, when there is time to the return and the genuineness of the alleged agreement of sale is subject to the regular assessment proceedings as directed by the Commissioner, it cannot be held that there is evasion of payment of tax, penalty or interest as contemplated under section 276C(1) or under section 277 of the Act or any offence under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code is committed. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the court below has rightly discharged the accused Nos. 1 to 3 under section 245(2) of the Code of criminal Procedure. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 55 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... ed before the Tribunal and was not considered by it. Para 4 of the statement of the case dated April 29, 1985, makes this position clear. If the said question was not raised nor argued nor considered by the Appellate Tribunal, it cannot be said that the question now referred by the Appellate Tribunal is one which arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Even if this court has directed the Appellate Tribunal to refer such a question, this court is not bound to answer the said question when it finally comes up for decision. (See CIT v. Smt. Anusuya Devi 1968 68 ITR 750 (SC)). In the light of the categoric finding in the statement of the case, we hold that the question referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal does not arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. So, we decline to answer the question referred to us. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (7) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment, Income, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... y of the said concern stood suspended under the notification issued by the Central Government on April 20, 1978, which was subsequently extended from time to time. The remedy was to proceed against the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited by resorting to the procedure laid down in sections 8 and 9. Really, a controversy which was required to be decided and towards which the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax did not invite his attention was whether the substantial commission payable by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited had already been paid to the Swadeshi Cloth Dealers Limited and that there is no amount lying in deposit which could be paid to the Income-tax Department. Furthermore, the petitioner had not been given any notice to which it was entitled and, as such, to us it appears that the notice was invalid. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the notice dated June 22, 1979, issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, is quashed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 53 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty And Interest ... ... ... ... ..... ces and to decide then whether he could reduce the penalty or waive the same. The Commissioner did not apply his mind to this aspect of the matter. The refusal to do so has resulted in the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by him. It is settled and needs no elaboration that the power of discretion conferred on an authority has to be exercised for the purpose under section 273A(1) (ii), which reads as under reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or imposable on person under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 or . Under this provision, the Commissioner could, waive the amount of penalty imposed or reduce it. The Commissioner passed the aforesaid order arbitrarily and capriciously without applying his mind to the relevant provisions. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and quash the order rejecting the prayer for waiver of penalty. The Commissioner of Income tax, Allahabad, is directed to consider the matter de novo. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... late Tribunal cannot be said to be correct, proper or justified in law. We are, therefore, of the view that the reasoning and the resultant conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal are vitiated, in that the proper aspects to be borne in mind and the principles of law to be applied in interpreting the trust deed, have not been borne in mind in rendering the decision. The Appellate Tribunal has failed to pose the correct question that arose for consideration and posed wrong aspects and came to the conclusion it did which is vitiated. We, therefore, decline to answer the questions referred to us. At the same time, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeal afresh and decide the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (7) TMI 51 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... her rent nor revenue derived from land. The receipts by the assessee by way of sale of tender forms do not partake of the character of agricultural income in the light of the above definition, as such receipts have nothing to do with agriculture. The connection, with agricultural operations, of such income is also very remote. It also cannot be considered that the sale of tender forms is incidental and so intimately connected with agricultural operations so as to make it part of agricultural operations. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the amount received by the sale of tender forms is not agricultural income but income under the Income-tax Act taxable thereunder. In the light of the above, our answer to all the questions referred to us is in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 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 (7) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty And Interest ... ... ... ... ..... cation should have been allowed. We have heard counsel for the Revenue as well and are of opinion that under section 273A of the Act, the Commissioner, if he found that a case was made out for reduction of the penalty, he could exercise that power. In the instant case, the Commissioner of Income-tax was oblivious of the said power conferred by section 273A(1) (ii) of the Act which runs as under (ii) reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or imposable on a person under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 or To us it appears that as a result whereof, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax suffers from an error requiring us to interfere. He lost sight of the relevant provision. He did not have the relevant consideration while rejecting the application. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated October 14, 1987. The Commissioner of Income-tax shall dispose of the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioner.
-
1989 (7) TMI 49 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... the profits of which are chargeable to income-tax. It cannot be stated that the assessee is not occupying the building for the purpose of his business. The business is done in partnership, the other partners also occupying the ground floor along with the assessee and the partnership business is carried on by him along with the other partners. Therefore, we are of the view that the annual letting value of the ground floor of the building belonging to the assessee which is in occupation of a firm in which the assessee is a partner is not includible in the income of assessee under section 22 of the Act and, consequently, the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 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 (7) TMI 48 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Revision, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... the impugned notice suffers from any infirmity and any step taken by the respondent is contrary to the submissions and provisions of law as enunciated in the reported decision. This court does not find that, in issuing the impugned order, there is any infringement of the right of the petitioner. The petitioner will have ample opportunity to place on record all relevant facts and materials in support of its contention at the time of adjudicating the same by the proper authority in accordance with law. Unless there is lack of jurisdiction to issue the impugned order and to initiate the proceeding, aid from the writ court is not called for. After perusing the materials on record, this court does not find that the proceeding should be quashed as prayed for. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the rule is discharged and all interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. There will be stay of operation of this order for a period of a fortnight from date prayed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 47 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , the case of a registered firm does not arise for consideration in this case. The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the unabsorbed depreciation of a registered firm of the current year is to be allocated among the partners or not. There is no dispute that it has to be done so. Therefore, we are not giving any opinion regarding the larger question posed before us which, after discussion, counsel also agreed, does not arise for consideration in the year in question. We hold that the unabsorbed depreciation of a registered firm for the current year should be allocated among the partners and the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on the assessee is correct. In the light of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 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 (7) TMI 46 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch was produced showed that overdraft had been made against hypothecation of stocks. There was no evidence on record to show that the stocks, as represented in the books of account of the asses see, had been undervalued. There was no certificate from the bank which showed that it had given the overdraft on the basis of hypothecation of stocks worth more than Rs. 33,000. If the Income-tax Officer wanted to disprove the evidence which had been put forth by the assessee, it was open to the Income-tax Officer to have summoned the necessary records from the bank and to have sought information from the bank as to whether the value of the stock which was hypothecated was Rs. 33,000 or more. In the absence of any evidence on record, there was no reason as to why the assessee s contention should not have been accepted. The contention which was raised by the assessee was a pure question of fact and we see no question of law arising in this petition. The petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 45 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... upholding the levy of penalty under section 18(l)(a) to the tune of Rs. 18,100 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that the return of wealth was filed by the assessee on January 31, 1973 ? The Tribunal should state the case and refer the aforesaid questions of law to this court.
....
|
