Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 354 Records
-
1991 (2) TMI 34 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Firm, High Court, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... nsel for the petitioners also contended that the discrepancies on the basis of which the respondent has given the complaint can be explained and accused No. 3 who is after all an auditor of the firm cannot be made liable to answer the criminal charges levelled against accused No. 1. The powers to be exercised under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, are extraordinary powers and they are to be exercised very sparingly and not casually. It is not within the domain of section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to assess the material on record to find out whether the material will be enough for the conviction of a particular person or not. The petitioners are at liberty to urge their defence in the court below which is competent enough to take into consideration the points urged by the petitioners and dispose of the matter inaccordance with law. I do not find any merit in these revision petitions. Hence, I make the following order The petitions are not admitted. They are dismissed.
-
1991 (2) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ction 16A(1). It is further submitted that, with respect to the other two assessment years, no returns were filed by the assessee and no proceedings for assessment or reassessment were also pending on the relevant date, viz., June 10, 1980. It is submitted that reference can be made under section 16A(1) only where a proceeding for assessment or reassessment is pending and not in a case where no such proceedings are pending. An identical contention has been upheld by us in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 622 of 1980, V . K. Jain V. WTO 1992 193 ITR 89 (All) decided on February 6, 1991. Following the said judgment, we allow this writ petition as well. We may state that the basic facts stated above are not disputed in the counter-affidavit. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. It is made clear that this order does not preclude the Wealth-tax Officer from making such reference if any assessment or reassessment proceedings are pending with respect to any assessment year.
-
1991 (2) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... tion (1), the Valuation Officer may serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to produce or cause to be produced on a date specified in the notice such accounts, records or other documents as the Valuation Officer may require. A reading of sub-section (1) shows that a reference to the Valuation Officer can be made only for the purpose of making an assessment. Once there is no assessment proceeding pending before the Wealth-tax Officer, there is no power to make such a reference. Since it is admitted in the counter-affidavit that no assessment proceedings were pending for these five assessment years on the date of reference to the Valuation Officer under section 16A(1) or on the date the Valuation Officer issued the impugned notice, both the reference under section 16A(1) and the impugned notice issued by the Valuation Officer under sub-section (2) must be held to be incompetent and invalid. They are, accordingly, quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... tion. The assessee who maintains the accounts on the mercantile system cannot be said to have highlighted all the particulars relating to the income accrued to it even if such income may not be realisable in the long run. The assessee did not furnish proper details to indicate what was the interest due to the assessee from the debtors in the course of his business in money-lending or interest due to the assessee otherwise. On a consideration of the entirety of the facts found, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that income had escaped assessment due to the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment and the Income-tax Officer has validly assumed jurisdiction under section 147(a) of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid, the question in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ing Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-I (Central), Calcutta, and the said application was rejected holding, inter alia, that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record which could be rectified under the aforesaid provision. Upon perusal of the materials on record and considering the submission made on behalf of the respective parties, this court has scrutinized the impugned orders challenged before this court. The writ court being essentially concerned in examining the decision-making process does not find anything to interfere with by exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. Regard being had to the materials on record, the impugned orders are found to be justified and the petitioner cannot be permitted to move the writ court for interference. Thus, finding no merit in the rule, the same is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Let there be stay of operation of the orders for a period of four weeks from date.
-
1991 (2) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Revision, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ace of the record the orders were prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and even if the facts which the Commissioner introduced regarding the enquiries made by him had been indicated to the assessee, the result would have been the same. The assessee, in our view, has not in any way suffered from the failure of the Commissioner to indicate the results of the enquiries mentioned above. Moreover, the assessee will have full opportunity of showing to the Income-tax Officer whether he had jurisdiction or not and whether the income assessed in the assessment orders which were originally passed was correct or not. Thus, the assessee will not be prejudiced even at the stage when fresh assessments are made by the Wealth-tax Officer in pursuance of the direction given by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ted deduction on such item where the only dispute before the Tribunal was whether rule 6AA was applicable to the case of this assessee. There is no dispute otherwise as to the allowability of the claim. What the Department contended is that since the rule came into force with effect from August 1, 1981, the assessee would be entitled only to the benefit of weighted deduction on expenditure incurred from August 1, 1981, to December 31, 1981, and not for the entire period. In our view, this contention cannot be accepted. Once the rule has come into force, it will govern the case of the assessee and the assessee was entitled to the expenditure incurred by the assessee during the relevant previous year. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in allowing the entire deduction on items covered by rule 6AA of the Rules. We, therefore, answer this question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... resistible that the liabilities of the said company form part of the consideration for the acquisition of group A transport of the transferor-company. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the expenditure of Rs. 2,77,360 representing the liability of Khalsa Nirbhai Transport Company (P.) Ltd. and discharged by the assessee was in the nature of capital expenditure. In our view, apart from the fact that the tax liability is not deductible, where the assets and liabilities are taken into account for ascertaining the purchase consideration, the liabilities in effect reduce the purchase consideration. In other words, the liabilities form part of the purchase consideration as held in Dashmesh Transport Company (P.) Ltd. 1980 125 ITR 681 (P and H). For the reasons aforesaid, we answer all the questions in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ch recognition retrospectively with effect from September 9, 1972, after recording reasons in writing. Where the recognition has been so withdrawn by the Board, wealth-tax shall become payable by the Ruler for all the assessment years after September 9, 1972, for which the jewellery was exempted on account of the recognition. This demonstrates that jewellery as such is not entitled to any exemption under the Wealth-tax Act. In our view, jewellery having been considered separately, it will not come within the purview of work of art . Even assuming that a piece of jewellery is a work of art and comes within the purview of section 5(1)(xii), it cannot be an ordinary piece of jewellery which is meant for personal use and which, by its very nature, is liable to be sold whenever such occasion arises. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, Civil Procedure Code, Suits
... ... ... ... ..... ment being paras 10(a), 10(b) and 10(c) and the prayer portion of the plaint being para (ai) all other amendments as per the schedule of the petition of the amendment are disallowed. The prayer for deleting paragraph 7 and the renumbering of the subsequent paragraphs is also rejected and, as a result, the amendment of paragraphs 10(a), 10(b) and 10(c) shall be treated as the amendment of paragraphs 11(a), 11(b) and 11(c) of the original plaint. The learned trial judge, therefore, shall direct the amendment to be made in the original plaint in terms of the order passed by this court and the present opposite party shall submit before the learned trial judge a fresh amended plaint in terms of the order passed by this court. In the circumstances, no order for costs is passed. The present petitioner shall file an additional written statement against the amendment allowed by this court within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. M. N. Roy J.-I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... liabilities, nor had such liability been claimed as a deduction by the assessee in the income-tax assessment. Accordingly, these liabilities although relate to sales tax and excise duty but such liabilities not being ascertained and being disputed and not having been claimed in the assessment for the purpose of income-tax, cannot be treated as liabilities at all. It is only in those cases where the assessee takes the benefit of deduction of certain liability but does not provide for them in the books of account that the same would come within the purview of rule 1A. It is not, however, the case here as would be evident from the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinbefore and the extract from the balance-sheet. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the reframed question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Let the balance-sheets and the assessment orders be kept on record as part of the record. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Incentive Bonus ... ... ... ... ..... he amount paid under the scheme is in no way linked with the actual production that may be achieved by the Ujjain plant at the end of the year or on the annual profits of the assessee-company. There cannot be any doubt that the incentive bonus was based on production of the good pipes by each employee for double shift operation per day. It is not linked in any way with the annual profits nor was it based on production or productivity of pipes in the assessee s factory. The payment under the scheme was made monthly to the employees and as such it could not come within the ambit of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. It is in other words an additional emolument. Mere use of the expression bonus could not render it a bonus, if it is otherwise clear that what was paid was not bonus but incentive wages. 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. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Incentive Bonus ... ... ... ... ..... nus but incentive wages. In our view, section 36(1)(ii) of the Act which has reference only to bonus paid under the Bonus act has no application to incentive bonus. It is not paid under the Bonus Act. It is an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and, accordingly, it is an inadmissible deduction under section 37. As indicated earlier, this court in Shaw Wallace Gelatines Ltd., held that customary bonus paid in excess of the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act is allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the monthly incentive bonus and the special incentive bonus are not covered under the Payment of Bonus Act and as such should be allowed as permissible deductions. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer both the questions in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 21 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... tax Officer but upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and confirmed on appeal by the Tribunal. Since the power of alienation was not given to the assessee as a condition was imposed, the court held that the properties obtained by the assessee should be treated only as joint family properties and not as his individual properties. In the instant case, the property in question was never treated as that of a Hindu undivided family and in view of Nanjappa s mental condition, blending by him was impossible. Even during the subsequent years as well as previous years, the assessment was in the status of individual. In these circumstances, the assessee was rightly held to be assessable in individual status. Interestingly, a further fact is to be noted under the will, Nanjappa had only a limited interest which itself is indicated of it not being a coparcenary interest. In view of the discussions made above, we answer both the questions in the negative and against the assessee.
-
1991 (2) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Capital Gains, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... issue could be decided one way or the other. This would invariably result in multiplicity of proceedings inasmuch as if a fresh assessment is made by the Incometax Officer pursuant to the direction of the Commissioner, the legal contention raised by the assessee has to be decided. In our view, when an issue pertains to the jurisdiction of the authority to make the order, it was not proper for the Tribunal to bypass that issue, taking shelter under technicalities and refraining from entertaining such legal contention. For the foregoing reasons, we decline to answer the questions referred to us and remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The Tribunal may, if thought fit and proper, remand the matter to the Commissioner of Income-tax for consideration of the question whether capital gain, if any, is exigible to tax for the relevant assessment year. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Export Market Development Allowance, Investment Allowance, Question Of Law, Weighted Deduction
-
1991 (2) TMI 18 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, Civil Procedure Code, Suits ... ... ... ... ..... artment and the decree-holder will pay the arrears in lump sum and the Incometax Department can get the same back. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this approach of the executing court was wholly wrong and erroneous. Since the decretal amount already stands attached, the decree-holder has no right to execute the decree. Moreover, the attached decretal amount is already being paid by the petitioner to the Income-tax Department and, therefore, the objection petition has been dismissed arbitrarily. After hearing learned counsel, I find merit in this petition. Since the decretal amount already stands attached at the instance of the Incometax Department, the execution application was not maintainable, particularly when the judgment-debtor was paying the attached amount to the Income-tax Department. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the objections filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor are allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... 8,000 per month which was the rent fixed long time ago. Such rent was tendered and when the assessee refused, it was deposited with the Rent Controller. The assessee did not take all reasonable steps to institute legal proceedings. The assessee s contention was that, after the expiry of the lease, the Soviet Consulate became a trespasser and, accordingly, the rent was not accepted. These facts do not prove that the rent was lost and became irrecoverable. At least, the assessee could realise rent which was originally fixed at Rs. 8,000 per month from the Soviet Consulate. The annual value was determined on the basis of such rent. In our view, the assessee is not entitled to any deduction under section 24(1)(x) as the conditions precedent for such deduction have not been satisfied by the assessee. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer this question in this reference in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, had taken a uniform view on the construction. In our opinion no question of law as such would arise out of such a finding though the said partnership does involve a question of construction. But in this case the deed undoubtedly is silent on the point, of specifying the shares. In our view, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the specific provisions of section 184 of the Act and having regard to the further fact that there was no partnership deed and it was in the deed of dissolution that there was an indication as to the contribution of the capital, merely from other surrounding circumstances, it cannot be inferred that there was a specification of the individual shares of the partners. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer this question in the reference, in the affirmative and in favour-of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1991 (2) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... serves is to be included as capital for the purpose of computing chargeable profits under the Surtax Act. It is common ground, in view of the Supreme Court s decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 559, that this amount of Rs. 26,00,000 cannot now be included in the capital computation. The question is, therefore, answered thus The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the entire sum of Rs. 1,71,70,000 styled as general reserves was includible in the computation of the capital of the assessee-company. It should have held that only an amount of Rs. 1,45,70,000 was to be included in the computation of capital. The question is so answered. As regards the second question, counsel are agreed that, in view of our court s decision in the assessee s own case in CIT v. Golden Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1977 108 ITR 453, the question requires to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question is so answered. No order as to costs.
....
|