|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 354 Records
-
1991 (2) TMI 54 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... hich the tenant has remained in occupation, is a clear indication that the assessee may not be able to claim deduction of the unrealised rent in the year in which the rents accrued because whether the said rent would become irrecoverable would be known only during the subsequent years. It is the above irrecoverability that has to be established in terms of rule 4. In the instant case, there has been no proof of such irrecoverability. The suit is still pending. Nowhere has the assessee shown that the tenant has become incapable of satisfying the decree as and when the court makes a decree. Of course, if, subsequently, it is established that the tenant is incapable of satisfying the decree or making the payment and the rents become irrecoverable, the assessee will be entitled to claim the deduction during those years. In these circumstances, we disagree with the opinion of the Appellate Tribunal. The question referred to us is answered in the negative and against the assessee.
-
1991 (2) TMI 53 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Firm, Reassessment, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ly that on a few occasions these partners may invite some experts to give advice having regard to the nature of the patients illness that will not convert the activities of the nursing home into a business activity. The finding of fact in the instant case is that the husband and wife who are duly qualified doctors constituted a firm in order to run a nursing home through which they carry on their profession. This, in our opinion, will not come within the purview of section 64(1) of the Act. Consequently, our answer to the questions referred to us is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. This answer will cover questions Nos. 1 and 3 also. Regarding the second question, the same is covered by the decision of the Supreme court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 996. The audit objection cannot be a basis for action under section 147(b). The said question is also answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Reference is answered accordingly.
-
1991 (2) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cline to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. It may, however, be noted that, on the date the writ petition was filed, Shiv Shanker Lal 1977 106 ITR 342 was holding the field. The decision of the Full Bench (see 1984 146 ITR 249 (All)) came only in November 1983. Had the Full Bench decision been there, probably, the petitioners would not have approached this court by way of this writ petition and even if they did, this court may not have entertained it. Having regard to this and all other circumstances of this case, we direct that if the petitioners file an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner impugned within a period of one month from today, the same shall be entertained without raising an objection on the ground of limitation and be dealt with according to law. A copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the parties within a week on payment of usual charges.
-
1991 (2) TMI 51 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... alue of the land in the vicinity or that any attempt was made to ascertain the value of the land in the locality. The observation of the Tribunal that the value of the land can be reasonably determined at Rs. 1,500 per acre is a wild surmise and, on the face of it, it is arbitrary. It is on the above reasoning that the Tribunal has fixed the taxable value of the gift at Rs. 70,000. We are of the view that the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal aforesaid is solely based on conjectures and surmises and the value was fixed in a most arbitrary manner. The question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal shall restore the appeal to file and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law afresh. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this judgement 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 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ar 1965-66. He has produced the original returns filed by the assessee along with the relevant records. His contention appears to be right as a fact, except with respect to the return for the assessment year 1967-68 where a note is appended saying that this property is exempt under section 5 of the Act. Even so, we cannot take note of this factual aspect. The statement of case proceeds on the assumption, as we have already stated above, that the assessee did disclose this property in her original assessment proceedings. We must take the said statement of the case as correct. We do not know what happened after the filing of the returns. May be, the said asset was disclosed later. Suffice it to say that we have to, and we do, go by the facts stated in the statement of case and cannot take notice of facts outside the record before us. For the above reasons, the questions referred are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case, Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... year 1956). The first contention is, accordingly, rejected. On the second contention, however, we find that the order of transfer is liable to be set aside. While we do not propose to go into the merits of the case, it may be noticed that, in pursuance of a show-cause notice, the petitioner has submitted an explanation setting out reasons as to why his case should not be transferred. The impugned order does not deal with any of those reasons stated in the said Explanation. In view of the fact that the petitioner is merely, what may be broadly called, an auditor, the matter, in our opinion, must be reconsidered. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The Commissioner of Income-tax shall pass orders afresh in accordance with law taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances including the explanation furnished by the petitioner to the show-cause notice. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Balancing Allowance, Business Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Proceedings, Salary To Employee, Special Deduction, Surtax Assessment
-
1991 (2) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cause notice can be said to be unsustainable. The petitioner has certain explanations with respect to the other two grounds also but, in our opinion, those explanations must be put forward before the Commissioner. It is not for this court to consider the explanation and express itself on the merits thereof in this writ petition at this stage. The writ petition is in the nature of a writ of prohibition. Unless total want of jurisdiction is made out or unless it is shown that, on the grounds stated in the notice, it is untenable, we cannot interfere. Neither of the grounds are made out here. We are desisting from making any comments on the grounds or merits of the case since that may prejudice the parties in future proceedings. The petitioner shall submit his explanation. Further proceedings shall go on according to law. The writ petition is dismissed. Certified copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within three days.
-
1991 (2) TMI 46 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Industrial Undertaking, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... findings of the Tribunal on questions of fact with which we are in agreement. We may note here that the relevant provisions of Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act regarding acquisition of immovable properties are in the nature of penal provisions and the same require to be strictly applied. We find that the Competent Authority has totally misdirected itself in passing its order dated November 27, 1987. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has gone into these various aspects in detail while accepting the appeal and quashing the order of the Competent Authority. We are in agreement with the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which is the subject-matter of the present appeal except in so far as it holds that the presumption under section 269C(2) was not available to the Competent Authority at the time of initiation of the proceedings. As already stated, we leave this question open to be decided in an appropriate case. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (2) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s arising in identical circumstances., have been dealt with and answered by a Bench of this court in CWT v. Pushpawati Devi Singhania 1991 188 ITR 364. Following the said judgment, the four questions are answered as follows The first question is answered by saying that there is no quest on of rule 1D overriding section 24(6) of the Act. Both provisions operate in their respective distinct fields. Question No. 2 is answered saying that it is open to the Department to rely upon rule 1 D in this reference, notwithstanding the fact that the rule as such does not appear to have been relied upon before the Tribunal. Question No. 4 is answered by saying that, while valuing the unquoted shares, the valuers are bound to apply the method prescribed in rule 1 D. We decline to answer question No. 3 for the reasons recorded in the said judgment. It cannot also be said that the Tribunal was at fault in acting upon the report of the valuers. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Industrial Undertaking, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... aid provisions ? It is brought to our notice by learned standing counsel for the Revenue that this question is concluded by a decision of this court in CWT v. Radhey Mohan Narain 1982 135 ITR 372. It has been held therein that where the assessee was engaged in purchasing plain white cloth and converting it into printed bed-spreads, scarves, garments, etc., by a process of dyeing and printing, the unit constitutes an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act. Following the said decision, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1991 (2) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Excise Duty, High Court ... ... ... ... ..... 256(1) of the Act. We do not find any contention or submission raised to the effect that the Tribunal has not dealt with the question of allowability of this deduction in the earlier years. Even the questions which have been framed do not pertain to this. It is true that this court can reframe a question of law but a question of law cannot be so reframed as to make it a completely new question which has not been sought to be referred or which does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. The contention now sought to be raised by Mr. Gupta, that the deduction was allowable only in the earlier years does not, in our view, arise from the Tribunal s order. In our opinion, there is no merit in this petition because the questions of law proposed are academic and the answer to the same is self-evident in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1971 82 ITR 363. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 42 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ompensation . On the respective valuation dates, it is only the value of the assessee s right to receive the compensation that should be quantified. It is the present value, i.e., the value as on the valuation date, of the amount that may be determined and paid as compensation in future. It is the present value of the future compensation that should be determined. The observations contained in paragraph 3 (at p. 197) of the judgment in Income-tax References Nos. 19 and 20 of 1988 (see 1991 191 ITR 196 (Ker) ) are clarified accordingly. We decline to answer the questions referred to this court in this batch of 18 cases. We direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeals to file and dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. The references are disposed of 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 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company ... ... ... ... ..... as perquisites within the meaning of section 40 (c) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? Counsel are agreed that, in view of our court s judgment in the case of CIT v. Indokem Pvt. Ltd. 1981 132 ITR 125, the question should be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The proceedings relate to the assessee s assessment for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Goodwill ... ... ... ... ..... tyle of Kishor Industries. On January 1, 1967, the assessee sold the business to a limited company named Kishor Pumps (P.) Ltd. of which he became the managing director. Under the agreement of sale dated April 11, 1967, the aggregate consideration of Rs. 1,05,650 was split up and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was described by the parties as a consideration for sale of goodwill. The Income-tax Officer held that the entire amount of Rs. 1,05,650 was liable to be assessed as capital gains on the sale of the said business. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal took the view that the sale of goodwill was not liable to capital gains tax as goodwill is self-generated asset of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the question involved here is directly covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty 1981 128 ITR 294. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
General Reserves And Taxation Reserves, Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... Act, 1961 ? Counsel are agreed that similar questions were involved in the case of CIT v. South India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1992 193 ITR 774 (Appex) and that, by our court s judgment dated December 12, 1988, in Income-tax Reference No. 236 of 1976, we have answered the first question thus Neither the taxation reserve nor the general reserve can be considered to be an allowance or an expenditure. The third question was answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the view our court took about the first question, the second question was stated not to arise. Accordingly, here again, following our court s judgment in the case of CIT v. South India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1992 193 ITR 774 (Appex.), we hold that neither the taxation reserve nor the general reserve can be considered to be an allowance or an expenditure. In view thereof, the second question need not be answered. The third question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 38 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act, Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... as contemplated under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The civil revision petition is, therefore, allowed setting aside the order of the Entertainment Tax Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada, dated October 19, 1990, passed in Appeal No. R-4 of 1990-91. The Entertainment Tax Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada, is directed to entertain the appeals filed by the petitioner against the best judgment assessments for the quarters ending June 30, 1984, to March 31, 1986, excluding the assessments for the quarters ending September 30, 1984, and December 31, 1984, and dispose of the appeals on merits. Since the appeals have been rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner is directed to represent the appeals within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be however, no order as to costs. There shall be stay of collection of tax till the stay petition to be filed by the petitioner is disposed of by the appellate authority.
-
1991 (2) TMI 37 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Co-operative Society, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... be answered in favour of the assessee. The third question referred to this court does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. No finding is seen to have been rendered by the Tribunal on the claim for deduction of Rs. 6,05,646 whereas the Tribunal has only remitted the matter to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to look into the matter afresh and decide the same according to law after giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard in the matter. We, therefore, decline to answer this question. Our answers to the questions referred for decision are Question No. 1 Answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 Answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 3 We decline to answer the question. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1991 (2) TMI 36 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... te and there is no need to be unduly harsh against the assessee and in fact any benefit of the language, if available, should go to the assessee rather than to the Revenue. The purpose of the higher rate of depreciation is the result of recognition given to certain machinery having a shorter life, having regard to the nature of the situation or the nature of the process involved in utilising the machinery. In the instant case, the expert s certificate conclusively establishes that the process involved is such that the substance which undergoes the processing in the machinery as well as the situation and the environmental conditions result in the machinery coming into contact with the corrosive chemicals affecting the life of the machinery. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Income-tax Officer was justified in upholding the claim of the assessee. The question referred to us is answered in the negative and against the Revenue. Reference is answered accordingly.
-
1991 (2) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Revision By Commissioner, Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... writ petition was very much relevant and ought to have been taken into consideration before reaching the final conclusion one way or the other. As the material relied upon by the petitioner was not taken into account in refusing the claim for depreciation, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this score. Coming to the second point about the unexplained investment, in my opinion, the petitioner has no case. The petitioner had failed to prove the source of investment to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. In these circumstances, no interference is called for by this court. In the result, the writ petition succeeds in part. The impugned order, to the extent it concerns the depreciation allowance, is quashed. The Commissioner of Income-tax is directed to restore the petitioner s revision to its original number and decide the claim for depreciation afresh in the light, of the observations made above and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
....
|
