|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 288 Records
-
1990 (12) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Additional Tax, Closely Held Company, Company, Distributable Income ... ... ... ... ..... fits determined on commercial principles, should be looked into for the purposes of section 104 does not mean that even where a particular amount, pleaded as a loan is not established to be a loan and is, therefore, treated as income, should be excluded from consideration. Doing so would put premium upon untenable and fictitious claims. It would then be sufficient if any assessee merely puts forward a case of a loan or hundi loan, as the case may be, and even if he does not prove it, he would at any rate be immunised from action under section 104. We are afraid, we cannot subscribe to such a theory. We may mention that, in this case, none of the authorities have referred to other considerations which are ordinarily relevant under section 104, namely, smallness of the profits made, losses suffered in earlier years and so on and so forth. For the above reasons, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Valuation Of Assets Of Firm, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... s do not show as to what happened to the valuation reports relating to land and buildings and plant and machinery. Both the appellate authorities do not appear to have addressed themselves to the words but excluding those referred to in sub-rules (2) to (6) and (8) to (11) occurring in sub-rule (7) of rule 8A. They seem to be under the impression that the valuer mentioned in sub-rule (7) would be competent to value all the assets of the partnership of whatever nature they are. In this assumption, they do not appear to be justified. In the circumstances, the proper course would be to call upon the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders in the light of the principles indicated in this judgment. Question No. 2 is, accordingly, returned answered with an observation that the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in the light of the discussions made in this judgment and give appropriate directions to the Wealth -tax Officer. The wealth-tax reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... oportion between agricultural and non-agricultural income and then the rule contained in section 11(1)(a) applied. So far as the decision of the Madras High Court in Silasri Kasivasi Muthukumaraswami Thambiran v. Agrl. ITO 1978 113 ITR 889 is concerned, it was rendered with reference to section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act. Moreover, it appears that the learned single judge has, in the said decision dissented from his own view taken earlier in another case. So far as the decision of the Orissa High Court in Raja Shri Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo s. case 1959 36 ITR 94 is concerned, the issue was one of apportionment of donation made by the assessee to an approved charitable institution. The learned judges held that it should not be apportioned between agricultural and non-agricultural income derived by the assessee. For the above reasons, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... nly ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming weighted deduction under section 35B on rent paid by the assessee in India ? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction under section 35B equal to the proportion of sales to export sales ? The Tribunal referred questions Nos. 1 and 2 but declined to refer question No. 3. This application is, therefore, confined to question No. 3. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. In our opinion, the question sought to be raised in question No. 3 is implicit in question No. 1. In fact, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had allowed deduction of an amount more than that claimed by the assessee himself applying the pro-rata basis, which is the subject-matter of complaint in question No. 3. In such a situation, we do not think that it is necessary to refer question No. 3 separately. The income-tax application is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... se. The questions on the facts and in the circumstances of this case as to whether the liability for sales tax accrued within the previous year and whether the assessee discharged such liability by actual payment within the period prescribed under the relevant statute were not gone into by the Income-tax Officer in this case. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that, in a case like this, where the statutory liability is actually discharged after the expiry of the previous year in compliance with the relevant statute, the benefit of deduction cannot be denied to the assessee. The Tribunal, however, shall direct the Assessing Officer to dispose of the matter in the light of the observations contained in this judgment after ascertaining the factual position. Subject to the 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.
-
1990 (12) TMI 44 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT
Appeals, Company, Exemptions, ITO, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... al had not been argued at the Bar and, in my opinion, in the facts of this case, it is not necessary to decide it. For the present case, it would suffice to say that the exclusive provisions regarding collection and recovery of income-tax contained in the Sikkim (Collection of Taxes and Prevention of Evasion of Payment of Taxes) Act, 1987, have displaced the corresponding provisions in the earlier taxation laws in force in the State of Sikkim covering the whole field of collection and recovery and they leave no room for application, of the collection and recovery provisions of the earlier laws. As regards the other point raised in this writ petition, I agree with the views expressed thereon by my learned brother and have nothing more useful to add. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. It remains for us to express our gratitude for the care and assistance which we received from all learned counsel appearing in this case.
-
1990 (12) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... t setting aside the view and the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ? (2) Whether, in view of the fact that the order of the Income-tax Officer has merged in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction to pass an order under section 154 ? (3) Whether, in view of the fact that the order of the Income-tax Officer has merged in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and no rectification could be made by the Income-tax Officer under section 154, the Tribunal was legally justified in restoring the case to the Income-tax Officer for fresh assessment ? But, in our opinion, it would be sufficient if we direct question No. 1 to be stated under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 suggested by the assessee are merely argumentative in nature. The very point is involved in question No. 1. The income-tax appeal is allowed. Question No. 1 shall be stated as directed above. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ooks of the assessee-Hindu undivided family and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was a detriment to the funds of the assessee-Hindu undivided family in the matter of acquiring the Grove Estate. We are unable to accept the above contention of learned counsel for the assessee. When once the estate had become the property of the assessee-Hindu undivided family on its coming into existence, there could be no change in its character by reason of the fact that, subsequently, in the books of the assessee-Hindu undivided family, the account of Sathappa Chettiar was debited with the amounts which have been drawn for the purchase of the estate. In these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the Grove Estate should be considered as belonging to the assessee-Hindu undivided family. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to the costs of these references. Counsel s fee is Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1990 (12) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the principle of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court . Undoubtedly, the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) applies in this case. The effect of the said Explanation has been set out by the Supreme Court in two recent decisions in CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose 1987 165 ITR 14 and CIT v. K. R. Sadayappan 1990 185 ITR 49. These decisions clearly enunciate the effect of the said Explanation and how it changes the rule relating to burden of proof in such matters. Since the Tribunal has not examined the case in proper light and has not adopted the proper approach laid down by the said Explanation (as explained in the said decisions of the Supreme Court), it is a proper case where the matter ought to be reconsidered by the Tribunal in the light of the said two decisions of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we return the reference to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the matter in the light of what has been stated above. The reference is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Industrial Undertaking, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... xxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? This question is concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this court in CWT v. Nisha Gupta 1981 UPTC 440. It has been held that cold storage is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 5 (1) (xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act. The reference is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1990 (12) TMI 39 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... y the Assessing Officer And the assessee was intimated accordingly ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in directing to condone the period of delay for the penalty under section 18(1)(a) for the assessment year 1973-74 from the date of the filing of the return for 1972-73 and for the penalty under section 18(1)(a) for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1980-81 with effect from September 5, 1980, when the return for 1973-74 was filed ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in cancelling the penalty for the assessment year 1972-73 and reducing the penalties for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1980-81, when there was no reasonable cause with the assessee ? The Tribunal is, accordingly, directed to state the aforesaid questions under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act and refer the same for the opinion of this court. The application is thus allowed. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 38 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Interest On Income ... ... ... ... ..... periods under consideration. In this view of the matter, there was no occasion on the part of the assessee-company to include the supposed quantum of accrued interest in its income. It was open to the assessee-company to treat the entire amount of interest as income of the year during which it was computed and paid. The Tribunal has erred in holding that the Income-tax Officer had rightly added the alleged accrued interest as income of the periods in question on a hypothetical and proportionate basis. In view of the reasons as stated above, my answer to the first question, in respect of the bank guarantee commission is in favour of the Department and, in respect of the office expenses, it is against the Department. The second question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Assistant Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. G. G. SOHANI C. J. -I agree.
-
1990 (12) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of various inputs in the form of paper, printing charges and other incidental expenses and treatment of entire receipts as income was not illegal ? Questions Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are merely factual in nature and cannot be referred. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, since there is no proper discussion in the order of the Tribunal, we are inclined to direct the Tribunal to state the aforesaid question. The income-tax appeal is allowed in part. The Tribunal is directed to state the said question. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... he words a parent of his . To accept the contention of learned counsel for the assessee would be to interpret the provision in a manner which would be totally out of context and to destroy the very purpose for which the provision had been enacted and would also lead to incongruous results. We find that in Perumal Goundan s case 1917 ILR 41 Mad 624, Swaminathan s case, AIR 1937 Mad. 549 FB Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. s case, AIR 1958 SC 658, the principle laid down by Bayley J. in Cortis case (108 Eng. Reports 741) had been referred to. We have already indicated why the reasoning of that decision could not be made applicable to the interpretation of section 54B of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that none of those decisions would, in any manner, advance the case of the assessee. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1990 (12) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Firm, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... aw justified in holding that there should be two assessments in the case of the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in not sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The Tribunal is directed to state the aforesaid questions. No costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 34 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Limitation For Completing Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... keeping in view the Constitutional mandate. The reasoning noted above clearly negatives the applicability of the doctrine of overriding title in the present case because, even if the State Government at all intended to divert the ownership of the tolls collected by the Corporation at the very source in favour of the Corporation, it was not legally permissible because section 2 of the Tolls Act read with the constitutional provisions debars the State Government from doing so. Therefore, any such presumption is impermissible in law. In view of the foregoing discussions, I hold that the Tribunal was right in law in accepting the contentions of the assessee that the toll collections made by the assessee-Corporation was the income of the State Government and not the assessee s income. Accordingly, the question as referred is answered in the affirmative and against the Department. Under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. G. G. SOHANI C. J. -I agree.
-
1990 (12) TMI 33 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ent only at the rate of Rs. 49,812 and added a sum of Rs. 55,288 in the total income of the assessee for each of these years. It is clear from the facts stated by the Tribunal in its order that the rent of Rs. 49,812 related to a prior period when the lease in favour of the assessee subsisted. The Estate Officer of the Government of India had determined damages for use and occupation of the premises by the assessee at Rs. 1,05,100 per year. This amount clearly falls under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act and is a permissible deduction. Since the whole amount of Rs. 1,05,100 is a permissible deduction, no question of interest under sections 139, 215 or 217(A-1) arises in this case. We, therefore, answer the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative, both the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the court will be forwarded to the concerned authority.
-
1990 (12) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Depreciation, Firm, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ugh the firm in which the assessee was a partner discontinued the business where the assets were used and depreciation was allowed. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention raised by Mr. S. K. Mitra on behalf of the Income-tax Department. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Mr. Mitra prays orally for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Inasmuch as the certificate of fitness for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted against the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hyderabad Construction Co. Ltd. 1981 129 ITR 81, we are of the view that this prayer for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court must be granted and, accordingly, we certify that it is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Leave is given accordingly. Let the certificate be drawn up separately. The Revenue shall pay the costs of this reference. BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1990 (12) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... e Life Insurance Corporation of India on March 1, 1976. Even so, as the assessee had not complied with the first of the conditions, referred to above, it cannot claim the benefit of deduction in respect of the entirety of the provision made for the gratuity and the actual provision that would qualify for deduction during the year would only be the incremental liability relevant to the assessment year and no more. The claim of the assessee under the head General charges was for Rs. 1,96,402 towards gratuity liability up to March 31, 1973, but the actual liability for the assessment year 1973-74 was only Rs. 30,328. In other words, the allowable deduction by way of provision for payment of gratuity has to be confined to the incremental liability of Rs. 30,328. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was right in the view it took and answer the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1990 (12) TMI 30 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... and, therefore, the dictum still holds good. This court has not been called upon to answer the question relating to the Tribunal s discretion to entertain a new ground for the first time for any other consideration and, as such, advisedly, I am refraining from entering into those aspects. Since, in view of the above discussion, the Tribunal will be now required to consider the question of entertainment of the claim under section 80J of the Act raised by the assessee which was taken as a ground in the memorandum of appeal, it is not necessary to examine and give any opinion in respect of questions Nos. (ii) and (iii). Accordingly, my answer to question No. (i) is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Questions Nos. (ii) and (iii) need not be answered. There will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Assistant Registrar of the Income-tax Tribunal, Patna Bench, for necessary action. G. G. SOHANI C. J.-I agree.
....
|
