|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 263 Records
-
1989 (7) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dings in a circuitous process. This court is of the view that the writ petition is absolutely premature and that it s misconceived. There is neither any ambiguity and the petitioner cannot agitate that there is lack of initial jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices. The case laws cited at the Bar do not support the contention of the writ petitioner. This court will not consider the merits of the case of the petitioner and quash the notices without allowing the statutory authorities to proceed according to law. Within the scope of section . 154, the acts done and/or caused to have been done by the respondents are found to be well-justified and there is nothing for the writ court to interfere in this matter. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. The rule is discharged and interim order, if any, is vacated. There will be no further costs. As prayed for, there will be stay of operation of this order for a period of two weeks from date.
-
1989 (7) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income From House Property, Owner ... ... ... ... ..... the relevant previous year. None of these two controversies arose in this case. Furthermore, learned counsel for the Revenue has not explained as to how the decision of this court in Prabhabati Bansali's case 1983 141 ITR 419 is not applicable to the facts of this case. In our opinion, the annual value cannot exceed the municipal valuation fixed by the Corporation of Calcutta. For the reasons aforesaid, the first question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to the first question in the manner aforesaid, the second question does not call for any answer. We, therefore, decline to answer the second question. On the oral prayer of Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the Commissioner, we grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inasmuch as this judgment raises a substantial question of law of public importance. Let the certificate be drawn up and issued separately. K. M. YUSUF J. -I agree.
-
1989 (7) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm, Gift, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... hem to the benefits of the partnership to the extent of shares allotted to them. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has expressed the view that the transfer of the share of the assessee to the extent of 20 to the minors was without any consideration, and, therefore, it amounted to a gift. The Tribunal has, however, not examined this aspect of the matter. The reference is, therefore, allowed and the question referred by the Tribunal is answered as indicated below. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding as it did only on the basis of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal 1974 97 ITR 393, that no gift was made by the assessee to the minors. The Tribunal should reconsider the matter and while doing so, it should examine whether the contributions of Rs. 4,000 by each of the minors towards the capital of the firm was adequate consideration for the shares which were allotted to them. No order as to costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... dichotomy in the interest paid whether it is before the 20th or after the 20th of the month. The, obligation to pay interest was under contract. On this basis, we have only to hold that the claim for interest is permissible deduction. It does not appear that the Revenue produced any material to show that the non-payment of kist was after the 20th of the month. So, the question whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of interest paid for non-payment of kist after 20th of the month, does not really arise. In the light of our finding that the payment of interest is an obligation incurred under a contract, the further aspect as to whether the non-payment of kist was before or after 20th of the month is irrelevant. 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, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (7) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... iny by courts and tribunals. One would have expected that the Income-tax Officer would know that there is no clause (d) to section 147. One would have also expected that where the facts are as complicated as here, with the authority responsible for the petitioner s assessments shifting from Survey Circle to Assessment Circle and so on from time to time, there would be more detailed explanation of the reasons for the reopenings than what has been set out in the affidavit-in-reply. Assuming for the moment that the affidavit had been made by the first respondent, it would be inadequate also because it does not say that he had found reason to believe that the petitioner s income had escaped assessment. This is a pre-requisite prescribed by section 147 and if a notice under section 148 is to be sustained, the court must be satisfied in that behalf. The petition is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (c). The respondents shall pay to the petitioner the costs of the petition.
-
1989 (7) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Business Expenditure, Company, Disallowance, Expenditure On Benefit Or Perquisite To Director, Interest, Litigation Expenditure
-
1989 (7) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... 36, followed in Income-tax Reference No. 6 of 1985 dated June 13, 1989 (CIT v. Muledath Mohammed 1990 186 ITR 498) and in Income-tax Reference No. 37 of 1985 dated June 13, 1989 (CIT v. A. S. Iqbal 1990 186 ITR 499), counsel for the Revenue submitted that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous in law. Counsel for the Revenue also brought to our notice the amendment made by section 3 of the Finance Act, 1989, to section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the light of the above decisions and the statutory amendment effected with retrospective effect, we are satisfied that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is erroneous in law in holding that no tax on capital gains was leviable on the sale of the land in question. We answer the question 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 17 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Exports, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... vision petition, the representative of the petitioner-firm could not point out any particular expenditure which was covered by the provisions of any of the various sub-clauses of section 35B(1)(b). Even during the hearing of this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out from the record any specific item which was covered by any of the sub-clauses of section 35B(1)(b) of the Act so as to enable the petitioner-firm to get the weighted deduction. The impugned order, under the facts and circumstances of the case, does not suffer from any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record. It was passed after giving opportunity to the party to prove its case and a full hearing as envisaged by law. The revisional court acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 264 of the Act and had also followed the rules of natural justice. The writ petition, under the circumstances, fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 16 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... er has passed orders on the said application partly reducing the interest which was sought to be levied. In this view of the matter, these questions now sought to be raised become academic. For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following two questions of law to this court (i) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that there is no finding that the machinery installed in the premises of JKCM was not used for the purposes of the business and profession and thereby directing the Income-tax Officer to allow full insurance charges on such machinery ? (ii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in reducing the disallowance to 25 of the total expenditure of Rs. 43,545 incurred under the head Kamla Retreat expenses when in fact the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal itself, on similar facts in earlier years, has upheld the disallowance at 50 of the total expenses ?
-
1989 (7) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Firm, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... located amount will be regarded as the value of the interest of each partner in the firm. A firm is not assessable to wealth-tax. Accordingly, the question of grant of any exemption will not arise. Exemption, if any, available to any partner in his individual wealth-tax assessment from net wealth including the allocated amount being the value of his interest in the firm, can be considered only in the partner s individual assessments. Exemption available to the partners under the Act in their individual assessments cannot be held to be any liability or debt of the firm in computing its net wealth under rule 2(1) read with section 7 of the Act. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of this court in CWT v. Mira Mehta 1985 155 ITR 765 and in CWT v. Naurangrai Agarwalla 1985 155 ITR 752. We, therefore, answer this question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (7) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Closely Held Company, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... benefit is available notwithstanding the change in the shareholding in the previous year if the change was not effected with a view to avoiding or reducing any liability to tax. The assessee has shown that the change was effected for business and commercial reasons and not in order that the tax liability may be avoided or reduced. The finding of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) and the Tribunal had not been challenged before us. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found on facts that there is no question of any Indian tax liability in view of the losses suffered by the non-resident companies and, accordingly, the Income-tax Officer has not made out any case whatsoever for invoking the provisions of section 79(b) of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer these questions, referred at the instance of the Revenue, in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (7) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... een the fifth respondent and respondents Nos. 6 to 9, a purchaser and the sellers. If any of the provisions of the income-tax enactment has not been followed, it is for the Department to look out and take proper proceedings. Surely, the petitioner has no right to come to this court praying to intervene in an affair, which is purely a private affair between the fifth respondent and respondents Nos. 6 to 9. Moreover, it is also not healthy practice to entertain this sort of writ petition under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. Whether the sellers received the entire consideration or whether the purchaser paid the entire consideration is matter to be looked into on evidence and it is for the Department to consider these things. It is not for the petitioner to come to this court and ask for the issuance of a writ of mandamus as if some legal right of hers has been taken away. In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and it is dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ssible, therefore, to rely upon the letter dated February 23, 1983, as furnishing the reasons for the issuance of the notice under section 148. Though it is not necessary having regard to what is stated above, I may add that it does not appear to me that the judgment in Krishnan s case 1980 121 ITR 859 (Mad) can be said to furnish such information as entitled the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to reopen the assessment. The particulars of the petitioners claim for deduction of the sum of Rs. 77,44,013 were known to the Income-tax Officer. He allowed that claim. Krishnan s case does not make any difference to the validity of such allowance, given presumably having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath s case 1971 82 ITR 363. In the result, the notice (exhibits E and F) dated March 30, 1982, under section 148 and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner s consequential letter, exhibit J, dated February 23, 1983, are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Gift, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... is another aspect of the matter. It may be that, as between the donor and the donee, the registered document may take effect from the date of execution but, as regards a third party, the point of time at which the deed becomes effective is when it is registered. If the registered document is held to be effective against the Revenue which is not a party to the deed from the date of executor, it will entail great hardship, because the Revenue will have no knowledge of the date of execution of the document, and the document can only be effective against the Revenue from the date of registration. The date of gift in the present case so far as the Revenue is concerned would, therefore, be not the date when the document was executed but the date when it was registered. For the foregoing reasons, the question in this reference is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (7) TMI 10 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wrong in coming to the conclusion that no question of law arose. The second question relates to the year in which credit has to be given to the tax deducted at source. This question involves the interpretation of section 199 of the Income-tax Act, as it stood at the relevant time, and the Tribunal ought to have referred the same. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this petition and 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 circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income from interest was from a business activity and not from other sources ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of the tax deducted at source in the period subsequent to the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1974-75 ? There will be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... of penalty under section 273(a). It was for the Income-tax Officer to find out whether there was any reasonable cause preventing the assessee from filing the revised estimate under section 212(2). It cannot be presumed in the absence of any recording by the Income-tax Officer that the assessee did not furnish any explanation to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer. In our view, on the facts of this case, it must be held that the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot invoke his power under section 263 on the ground that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer is erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We, therefore, respectfully agreeing with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in J. K. D'Costa 1982 133 ITR 7, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. Leave is given to file the paper book. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1989 (7) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... e income derived must be considered to be of the same nature, namely, business income. Exploitation of commercial assets does not necessarily mean exploitation by the assessee himself at all times. It cannot be disputed that the firm being the owner of property may lease it out as a part of its business. The facts found by the Appellate Assistant. Commissioner have not been challenged before the Tribunal. It is admitted that the firm has been doing something more than the management of the existing property. The intention is to retain the assets as circulating capital to earn profits. In our view, the principles laid down by this court in CIT v. Prem Chand jute Mills Ltd. 1978 114 ITR 769 and Everest Hotels Ltd. v. CIT 1978 114 ITR 779 (Cal), will equally apply to the facts of this case. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference 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 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Priority Industry, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ndustry. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80-I in respect of such income. Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Davidson of India (Pvt.) Ltd. 1986 161 ITR 407. There, the Division Bench of this court held that the profits arising from sale of import entitlements obtained from export of manufactured products of the assessee which carried on the business of manufacture of tea garden machinery, a priority industry, are attributable to the business of manufacture and export of products in a priority industry and hence allowed the relief under section 80-I in respect of profits arising from the sale of import entitlements. In our view, having regard to the facts of this case and the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, the second question must be 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 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date Of Effect Of Government Notification, Excise Duty ... ... ... ... ..... otification (Notification No. 284/82, Central Excise, dated November 30, 1982) was not made known to the public, the petitioners would certainly be entitled to the benefit of the earlier exemption Notification No. 30/ 79, Central Excise, dated March 1, 1979. Consequently, the order made in W. P. No. 6048 of 1984, directing refund of the moneys collected from the petitioner for the period from November 30, 1982, to December 7, 1982, in enforcement of the withdrawal notification, ignoring the earlier exemption notification, is correct. It follows therefrom that the orders made in W. P. Nos. 6049 and 6050 of 1984 cannot also be assailed. In the result, all the appeals fail and they are dismissed. The petitioners (respondents in the writ appeals) would be entitled to costs of Rs. 500 in each of the writ appeals. The benefit of the interim order made on December 3, 1984, in C. M. P. Nos. 14576, 14596 and 14597 of 1984 would be available to the respondent with regard to the refund.
-
1989 (7) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Business Loss, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... eemed to have been always in existence. In this case, the loss was allowed as a revenue loss. The assessee did not prefer any appeal against such determination. Therefore, the appellate authority had no occasion to consider or decide whether the loss was rightly allowed or not. In our view, the question whether the loss arising out of devaluation is capital loss or revenue loss was not the subject-matter of the appeal before the appellate authority and, accordingly, the Commissioner of Income-tax had jurisdiction to revise the order of assessment. For the foregoing-reasons, both the questions raised at the instance of the Revenue are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The only question referred to this court at the instance of the assessee must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue in view of the decision in Bestobell (India) Ltd. v. CIT 1979 117 ITR 789 (Cal). There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
....
|
