|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 354 Records
-
1991 (2) TMI 95 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... according to the Tribunal, was reasonable. Apart from claiming some amounts by way of expenses, no other material has been placed by the assessee to show that they are entitled to a larger allowance than 10 of the expenses incurred or 10 of the total income. In the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was right in finding that the allowance of 10 of the total expenses for the assessment year 1978-79 is more than fair to the assessee and that the allowance of 10 of the total income for the next assessment year is reasonable. No error of law has been committed by the Appellate Tribunal. Question No. 1 referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative i.e., against the assessee and in favour of 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.
-
1991 (2) TMI 94 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Concealment Penalty, Penalty For Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... 44 ITR 739, power to impose penalty under section 28 of the old Act corresponding to section 271 of the new Act depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of the proceedings under the Act. It cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his satisfaction about the existence of the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) before the proceedings are concluded. There is no evidence on record to show that the Income-tax Officer, in this case, was satisfied in the course of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we must hold that the penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) were not attracted in this case. The question is, therefore, answered accordingly in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to question No. 3, no other questions survive and are, accordingly, not answered. It is made clear that the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner stands hereby quashed. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 93 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... y of April, 1961, or any earlier assessment year, it shall be furnished in the appropriate form prescribed in rule 19 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, and shall be verified in the manner indicated therein (b) where a return of income relates to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April 1962, or the 1st of April 1963, or the lst day of April 1964, it shall be furnished in the appropriate form in force immediately before the lst day of April, 1967, and shall be verified in the manner indicated therein. Section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable only when the contribution is made by the trust or a charitable institution to which section 11 applies, to another trust On the face of it, section 12(2) of the Act can have no application to this case. Accordingly, there is no merit whatsoever in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the Revenue. We, therefore, answer question No. 2 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 92 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Building, Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, Disallowance, Perquisite
-
1991 (2) TMI 91 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Priority Industry, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... with the Tribunal that the interest income is attributable to the business income of the assessee which is a priority industry in this case and, therefore, relief under section 80-1 was justifiably allowed. Accordingly, the second question is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As regards the third question, the admitted position is that the assessee is an industrial undertaking in existence and that the deposits of Rs. 1.40 crores represented the monies which the assessee had set apart for the expansion programme and for discharging various liabilities of the industrial undertaking. It is not something which has nothing to do with the industrial undertaking. This is the money collected for the purpose of the industrial undertaking, and, therefore, following our court s decision in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. 1982 137 ITR 42, we answer the third question also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 90 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... -tax Officer was not entitled in law to allow depreciation when the assessee has not supplied the particulars for grant of depreciation allowance as required by section 34 of the Act ? Counsel are agreed that the issue involved herein is covered by our court s judgment in the case of CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 1989 177 ITR 443, in favour of the assessee. Following the said decision, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 89 - KERALA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... assessment years is considered as a separate unit for the purpose of affording the benefit of deduction to the assessee. In the above perspective, we concur with the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Satellite Engineering Ltd. s case 1978 113 ITR 208 and Suessin Textile Bearing Ltd. s case 1982 135 ITR 443. We respectfully disagree with the decision of the Karnataka High Court to the contrary in Nippon Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. s case 1990 181 ITR 518. In the light of our above discussion, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondent-assessee is entitled to claim relief under sections 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1977-78. We answer the question referred to this court 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 will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1991 (2) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for imposition of penalty. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,25,000 after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard, which was deleted by the Tribunal. All the three questions raised herein revolve around the question whether the disclosure by the assessee of the information about the prize money in Part IV of the return absolves him from the obligation of disclosing fully and truly the said amount as his income. We are told by Ms. Patel that, by our order dated February 22, 1991, in Income-tax Reference No. 128 of 1977 (CIT v. Dajibhai Kanjibhai 1991 189 ITR 41), we have already held that when an assessee had disclosed particulars of his income in Part IV of the return, there is no concealment. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty. The questions are, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Appeal To Tribunal, Depreciation, Law Applicable To Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... d power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has now laid down the law clearly and categorically about the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s powers and jurisdiction in jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT 1991 187 ITR 688 AIR 1991 SC 241, it is not necessary to refer to and discuss each and every case separately. Under the circumstances, it appears to us that there is conflict of views between the two judgments of our court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT 1983 141 ITR 326 and in CED v. Bipinchandra N. Patel 1990 186 ITR 29. The conflict has not been resolved by any Supreme Court decision or by any decision of a larger Bench of our court. Under the circumstances, it is only appropriate that this issue, i.e., question No. 2 is placed before the Honourable Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to resolve the controversy. We accordingly direct that the papers be placed before Hon ble Chief Justice for the purpose aforesaid.
-
1991 (2) TMI 86 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Salary ... ... ... ... ..... taken on rent of Rs. 250 per month for running the business by the applicant. As regards advance to Shri Sharma, it cannot be considered that it was for the purpose of business when no interest was charged from Shri Sharma. On the contrary, rent was paid by the assessee for the user of the house property of Shri K. R. Sharma for business. Only that interest can be claimed under section 36(1)(iii) where loan is taken for the purposes of business. A sum of Rs. 32,770 was disallowed by the Tribunal as the loan was not obtained for the purpose of business. The Tribunal has observed that, in respect of the premises which were taken on rent, there is no proof that they were taken on concessional rent. Had there been a concessional rent, it could be said that the advance was for the purpose of business. The question whether loan was taken for the purpose of business is a question of fact in respect of which no reference can be called. In the result, these applications are dismissed.
-
1991 (2) TMI 85 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat the required evidence would not be produced which the petitioner failed to produce on all earlier occasions. Such an expression was not called for without giving the petitioner an opportunity of producing evidence. Whether the petitioner would be successful in producing the evidence cannot be looked into without giving an opportunity for that. Thus, for this reason alone, the order of the learned Commissioner deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated March 16, 1990, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IV, New Delhi, is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Commissioner for disposal on merits. The petition stands disposed of.
-
1991 (2) TMI 84 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... Rolling Mills 1979 119 ITR 256 also took the view that iron rods manufactured from out of scrap metal fall within item No. (1) of the Fifth Schedule. In this decision, however, there is no reference to any other decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court. The said conclusion was arrived at mainly influenced by a letter of the Central Board of Direct Taxes addressed to the Secretary, Bharat Chamber of Commerce, Calcutta, opining that the words aluminium, copper, lead and zinc (metals) mentioned in item No. (2) of the Fifth Schedule include the manufacture of aluminium (metal) both from bauxite as well as from aluminium scrap . The court held that what is said about item No. (2) holds good equally with respect to item No. (1). For the reasons given above, we respectfully disagree with the view taken by the Kerala, Madras and Punjab and Haryana High Courts. In the result, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1991 (2) TMI 83 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... due in this year. It must be remembered that the assessee was maintaining his accounts on the mercantile basis. If so, what is relevant is the date of accrual and not the date of actual payment. The mere fact that the petitioner paid the said interest amount in pursuance of an order of this court cannot shift the date of accrual. The stay granted by this court or other orders are equally irrelevant. This is also the principle laid down in a decision of the Supreme Court in Kedarnath jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 363. Sri Vikram Gulati who assisted us as amicus curiae in this case brought to our notice certain decisions which on perusal, we find, turned on their own facts. The nearest case is the one in Addl. CIT v. Rattan Chand Kapoor 1984 149 ITR 1 (Delhi). It was a case where the assessee was following a hybrid system of accounting. The question referred is, accordingly , answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1991 (2) TMI 82 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Export Promotion, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... relied upon the documents and gave a finding of fact to the effect that the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was a capital receipt. The question proposed accepts the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal and the facts found are that the assessee had received Rs. 20 lakhs with a specific direction that the same should be treated as corpus of the assessee-company. It is not sought to be agitated by the Department that the order passed is perverse. No question is sought to be referred to the effect that the Tribunal has ignored the relevant material or has arrived at a finding which could not have been arrived at. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that we can reframe the question. This court can certainly reframe a question but it cannot so reframe a question as to make it a new case. The question which is sought to be referred in the present case is pure question of fact and hence no reference is called for. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 81 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
High Court, Offences And Prosecution, Prima Facie Case ... ... ... ... ..... rs. The firm which submitted the accounts to the bank is said to be a sole proprietorship concern of Sat Pal Singh Alang. The point of significance again is that the name of the firm and the occurrence of Sat Pal Singh Alang in both is common. For the reasons discussed above, the petitions are allowed and the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, are set aside. It is directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, proceed further with the case. It may be made clear that the discussion made in this order is in the limited context of the disposal of the petitions made in this court. They are not intended to prejudice the case of either party and it is expected that the matter will be dealt with and disposed of strictly on its merits according to law. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, on March 11, 1991.
-
1991 (2) TMI 80 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Agricultural Income Tax, Tea Estate ... ... ... ... ..... are also described as forest produce. None the less, if they are found in private forests and sold, such sale is the sale of an agricultural produce. The income derived from it, in our opinion, shall be covered by section 20 of the Act. In the result, these tax cases are allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal in so far as the sale of cut trees (loosely termed as firewood) is concerned is set aside and the order in so far as wattle barks is concerned, is affirmed. The Tribunal has remitted the case, in so far as sale of timber from the peripheral area is concerned, to the assessing authority. Since we are of the opinion that a fresh look into the facts is necessary with respect to the sale of cut trees also, it will be proper, in our opinion, if the same is also remitted to the assessing authority for a reassessment in accordance with law. The tax cases are allowed in part as mentioned above and remitted to the assessing authority for a fresh hearing. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 79 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... to a consultation with the tax consultant for the purpose of tax planning. There may be other questions arising in the course of the assessee s business touching upon the taxation laws. These problems cannot be separated item wise nor can the fee paid to the consultant regarding income-tax cases before the authorities and fee paid regarding other matters be apportioned. The retainer fee is to be considered as one entity for the entire services kept ready by counsel as and when the assessee seeks the advice. In the instant case, the Department has not questioned the genuineness of the payment. The question involved is under what head the deduction is to be granted. If the payment is attributable to the expenditure referred to under section 37, the same cannot be partially disallowed by shifting a portion as failing under section 80VV. In the instant case, that is what has been done. Consequently, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and against the Revenue.
-
1991 (2) TMI 78 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Loss, Return ... ... ... ... ..... e provisions of section 139(3) of the Act shall be carried forward and set off is to be permitted. But, we are concerned with the assessment year 1976-77, which period is long before the above legislative amendment. As the law stood in the relevant assessment year 1976-77, in view of the decisions of various High Courts referred to above, the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss and the decision of the Supreme Court in Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. s case 1970 77 ITR 518 will apply. The decision of the Tribunal, relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Telster Advertising Pvt. Ltd. s case 1979 116 ITR 610 is justified in law. We, therefore, answer both the questions referred to this court in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered as above. 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.
-
1991 (2) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Building, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... nt and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on such roads ? Counsel are agreed that, in view of our court s decision in the case of CIT v. Sandvik Asia Ltd. 1983 144 ITR 585, the question is to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. However, the assessee will be entitled to depreciation on these roads as building . The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 76 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Business Expenditure, Business Income, Expenditure On Advertisement, Sugar Industry
....
|
