|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 288 Records
-
1990 (12) TMI 69 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... on account of depreciation be carried forward and set off in subsequent years ? 2. Whether, in the face of the specific provisions of law contained in section 32(2) and section 75 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the issue whether unabsorbed depreciation has to be allowed in the case of the firm or of the partners is a debatable issue which cannot be made the subject-matter of rectification under section 154 ?
-
1990 (12) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... computing the chargeable profits in accordance with clause (viii) of rule 1 of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ? It is stated by counsel for the Revenue as well as counsel for the assessee that this question has to be answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 155 ITR 120. The question is, accordingly, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 67 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To CIT(A) ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal shall state the following question under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was limited by the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while dealing with the appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer passed independently under section 143(3) of the aforesaid Act ?
-
1990 (12) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the two questions but not the third question. On a reading of the orders of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the third question is but an aspect of the same issue involved in the question referred, namely, the applicability of section 43B of the Income-tax Act. It is but appropriate for the sake of completeness that the third question is also to be referred. The income-tax appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 65 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ght in holding that statutory liabilities incurred by the assessee for gratuity was deductible but contractual liability incurred by others in favour of the assessee was not includible in the receipts ? (v) Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the Income-tax Officer to accept the result as disclosed by the account books on the ground that the assessee was following a method of accounting from which profits are correctly deducible ? It is brought to our notice that, in the case of this very assessee, these very same questions have been answered in its favour by a Bench of this court in CIT v. Jananamandal Ltd. 1989 180 ITR 420. The said decision related to an earlier assessment year, viz., 1973-74, whereas the present reference pertains to 1974-75. For the reasons given in the said judgment, questions Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and questions Nos. (iv) and (v) are returned unanswered.
-
1990 (12) TMI 64 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Interest, Return ... ... ... ... ..... ted by sufficient cause from furnishing the return within time within the meaning of clause (4) of rule 117A. The petitioner s case was that his munim was suffering from infective hepatitis from December 20, 1974, till about March 3, 1975. The certificate of the doctor produced by the petitioner supported the said fact. The Commissioner of Income-tax did not disbelieve the said certificate. What he said was that even if the said certificate was true, there was ample time for the petitioner to file his return. It may be seen that the illness of the munim was only till March 3, 1975. There was ample time for the petitioner to file the return which was due by July 31, 1975. We cannot, therefore, say that the reasons given by the Commissioner for rejecting the revision are not relevant and genuine. We cannot also say that the Commissioner has not applied his mind to the relevant facts of this case. We find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 63 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ities as kartas of their respective Hindu undivided families in the firm. The assessee paid certain amount by way of interest to two of the partners on the deposits made by them in their individual capacity. This was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee following its own decision in another matter. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. None appears for the respondent. In view of the Full Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Nitro Phosphetic Fertilizer 1988 174 ITR 269, the question referred has to be answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 62 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Partners, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ncerned, there is no room for any doubt. It also appears that similar entries were also found in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1965-66 as well. It is for the Tribunal to consider this aspect while passing final orders under section 27(6) of the Act. The Tribunal shall examine whether the unexplained credit entries treated as the income of the firm during a particular assessment year can be treated as the wealth of the partnership firm for the subsequent years also and whether they may be taken into account while determining the value of the interest of the assessee therein. The question referred is, accordingly, answered in the following terms. The additions made by the Wealth-tax Officer on account of unexplained credit entries was justified in so far as the assessment year 1964-65 is concerned. For the subsequent assessment years, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made herein. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Allowable Expenditure, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... nditure on a contingent liability could not be made the subject of deduction. On appeal, however, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed the appeal though, for an earlier year, similar claim was allowed by him. The Tribunal has, however, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. We find that the facts of this case are similar to the facts of Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1959 37 ITR 1 (SC). That too was a case of development. In this case also, the assessee has been debiting the expenses to be incurred by it on development but only in respect of those plots which were sold in the relevant accounting year. It may be mentioned that the assessee in this case also is maintaining his accounts on mercantile basis. Since it is not disputed by either counsel that the facts of this case are similar to those of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the question referred herein is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 60 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e firm before the change continue as partner or partners after the change or (b) where all the partners continue with a change in their respective share or in the shares of some of them Provided that nothing contained in clause (a) shall apply to a case where the firm is dissolved on the death of any of its partners. According to the above sub-section, where one or more of the partners cease to be partners or one or more new partners are admitted, in such circumstances that one or more of the persons who were partners of the firm before the change continue as partner or partners after the change, it shall be treated as reconstitution. In similar circumstances, we have held that it was a case of reconstitution, vide our judgment in I. T. R. No. 1095 of 1978, CIT v. Jagjiwan Patel Co. decided on November 20, 1990 ( 1991 188 ITR 563). Following the said decision, we answer the questions referred in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Assessment, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... is court in CIT v. Om Sons 1979 116 ITR 215. In the said decision, it has been held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner must have jurisdiction not only on the date he initiated the penalty proceedings but also on the date he passed the final orders. Though this view is opposed to the view taken by a majority of the High Courts in the country, we are bound by the said Bench decision. Following the same, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 58 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... iding food or other items to the staff of the assessee. The question as referred is concluded against the assessee by a decision of this court in Phool Chand Gajanand v. CIT 1989 177 ITR 265 FB . Following the said decision, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. It is, however, made clear that if any amount is spent on providing food or other items to the members of the staff, that would be an admissible expenditure under section 37 of the Act. If there is any such expenditure incurred on staff, the Tribunal may look into the matter and pass appropriate orders while passing final orders under section 260 of the Act.
-
1990 (12) TMI 57 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Jurisdiction To Levy Penalty, Law Applicable To Assessment, Penalty, Unexplained Investments
-
1990 (12) TMI 56 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ued on the basis of the assessee s own return. What are permissible to be adjusted are (i) only apparent arithmetical errors in the return, accounts or documents accompanying the return, (ii) loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief, which is prima facie admissible on the basis of information available in the return but not claimed in the return, and, similarly, (iii) those claims which are on the basis of information available in the return, prima facie inadmissible, are to be disallowed. This only means that, at that stage, as we have seen above, only errors apparent on the face of the record alone may be corrected. It may be further noticed that even this is permissible on the basis of the information accompanying the return. The assessing authority is not permitted under this guise of making adjustment to adjudicate upon any debatable issue. We have, therefore, little hesitation in rejecting this contention. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this petition.
-
1990 (12) TMI 55 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... y other proceeding and there is no reason why a writ proceeding is not to be included within the said phrase. In fact, if a writ proceeding is not included within the said phrase, it would become superfluous and surplusage. Learned counsel for the assessee invoked the principle that, in a taxing statute, words must be strictly construed and that there is no room for any equity in a taxing statute. That is so. But what we are concerned with herein is to give a reasonable interpretation of sub-section (3) of section 155 of the Income-tax Act having regard to its underlying object and the language employed therein. It must be remembered that the said sub section provides for both the situations, namely, where a deduction has been granted but it has to be modified and where a deduction has not been claimed and granted but has to be allowed. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... n of the firm ? The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessment year concerned is 1973-74. At the inception of the relevant previous year, the firm comprised seven partners. On October 6, 1972, one of the partners retired. The remaining partners executed a new partnership deed on October 12, 1972, with effect from October 7, 1972. In the above circumstances, the question arose as to whether it is a case of reconstitution calling for one assessment for the entire year or a case of succession calling for two separate assessments. The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee following the decision of this court in CIT v. Shiv Shanker Lal Ram Nath 1977 106 ITR 342. The said decision was overruled in Vishwanath Seth v. CIT 1984 146 ITR 249 (All) FB . Having regard to the said Full Bench decision and in view of the provisions of section 187(2) of the Act, we must answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 53 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... llowable under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent, though served. In view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Phool Chand Gajanand v. CIT 1989 177 ITR 265, the question has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 52 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act ... ... ... ... ..... aft was received from Singapore. There is nothing on the record to show that the brother of the appellant was not a resident of Singapore. It has also not been established that this demand draft had not been received from Singapore. This apart, the purchase of the house for Rs. 72,530 was disclosed to the income-tax authorities in the relevant return for the assessment year 1975-76 and it was accepted. The assessment made by the income-tax authorities is a piece of evidence which can be utilised by the appellant unless it can be controverted by some other evidence to the contrary. In the instant case, no such contrary evidence has been pace on the file to doubt the assessment made by the income-tax authorities. It would, therefore, be reasonable to hold that the amount spent for the purchase of the house came into the hands of the appellant from legal and known sources and not otherwise. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Competent Authority set aside.
-
1990 (12) TMI 51 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ... ... ... ... ..... se is not a case where the non-resident is retaining the property in the designs and drawings. Such designs and drawings are imported under the import policy and with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India on the basis of the letter of intent. The importation of the designs and drawings postulates an out and out transfer or sale of such designs and drawings and the non-resident company does not retain any property in them leaving the grantee to use or exploit them. The consideration paid for transfer, therefore, cannot be treated as royalty falling under article XIII of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and the U. K. The consideration paid is for an outright transfer of the drawings and designs by the non-resident company and such consideration cannot be termed as royalty. We, therefore, answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order s to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1990 (12) TMI 50 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act ... ... ... ... ..... e source of capital contribution, i.e., Rs. 3,000 invested in 1957. No such details were furnished. The Competent Authority has, therefore, recorded a finding regarding this item against the appellant. The investment of Rs. 3,000 was made in 1957. The appellant has been assessed to income-tax since 1961-62 under section 143 of the Income-tax Act.He did not maintain account books. It is understood that the assessments for various years were made after due verification. It cannot be held that, in 1957, the appellant had absolutely no income from his known legal sources and as such he could not make an investment of Rs. 3,000. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is an income-tax assessee since 1961-62 and that the investment of Rs. 3,000 was made as far back as in 1957, the adverse finding of the learned Competent Authority against the appellant regarding this item cannot be upheld. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Competent Authority set aside.
....
|
