|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 292 Records
-
1992 (1) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Closely Held Company ... ... ... ... ..... t only reasonable but also high, for, when the current year s profits are available without being in any manner burdened by other outgoings, the assessee cannot be heard to say that only 25 per cent. of the distributable income could be declared as dividend. This cannot be supported on any principle or precedent. With reference to the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee was having capital of Rs. 10 lakhs and the reserve was much more than that, and the financial position of the company was safe and sound and the assessee had not shown any special circumstances for declaring a lesser percentage of dividend than that provided under the Act. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal was quite correct in upholding the action of the authorities below under section 104 of the Act and in levying additional tax. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us at the instance of the assessee in the affirmative and against the assessee. We direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... am not inclined to set aside the proclamation made in this case, to give some time to the petitioner, I direct the third respondent herein to consider the proposal of the petitioner, if the petitioner approaches the Commissioner of Income-tax, the third respondent herein, with the proposal for mortgaging the property, provided the petitioner satisfies the condition of paying the arrears without disputing the quantum as it stands today. As such, instead of granting the prayer as asked for, since this court can mould the prayer to suit the occasion, a direction is to issue to the third respondent to consider the proposal of the petitioner if made by the petitioner as stated above, and pass appropriate orders on or before February 20, 1992. Till then the question of proclamation shall stand stayed if there is no proposal, it is open to the respondents to proceed further to realise the arrears. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... to direct the Appellate Tribunal to forward a supplementary statement of the case to this court. We, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in this court under section 258 of the Income-tax Act, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to forward a supplementary statement of the case to this court incorporating in full the four documents which we have stated and specifically enumerated hereinabove. In this connection, we would draw the attention of the Tribunal to a Bench decision of this court in Travancore Tea Estate Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1992 194 ITR 404, wherein this court had occasion to remind the Tribunal of its duty to draw up a proper statement of the case and to enclose the vital or important documents which have been referred to in the appellate order or in the statement of the case. A copy of this order, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, forthwith.
-
1992 (1) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ssment proceeding as to any investments made by the assessee in the names of any other persons. The Income-tax Officer has not made any investigation about various fixed deposits standing in the names of various persons and found out that those were standing in fictitious names. The Income-tax Officer has issued the notice under section 148 merely on suspicion. Under these circumstances, after carefully looking into the records which were produced before this court, I am of the view that there was no fresh material or information in the possession of the Income-tax Officer which would enable him to issue notice under section 148. Therefore, the order dated December 18, 1991, is recalled. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the writ petition. This order will not prevent the Income-tax Officer from making further investigation and to take steps thereafter in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of finally as above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... alty or interest, demanded or payable by him under the Act. Reading these provisions with the clear language of section 37(1) of the Act, there can be no escape from the conclusion that even bona fide expenditure which would otherwise be deductible under section 37 of the Act has deliberately been kept down under section 80VV of the Act to a maximum extent of Rs. 5,000. Further, the words any expenditure incurred by the assessee in the previous year cannot, but admit of the interpretation that this means the total expenditure incurred during the previous year and not Rs. 5,000 in respect of each assessment year as was sought to be argued by the counsel for the assessee. A similar view has also been expressed by the High Court of Calcutta in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CIT 1987 164 ITR 466. In the result, questions Nos. 2 and 3 are hereby answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This reference is answered accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Shares And Securities ... ... ... ... ..... ire that right. Looked at in this manner also, it is clear that the net capital gain by her would be represented by the amount realised by her on transferring the right to receive new shares, after deducting therefrom the amount of depreciation in the value of her original shares, being the loss incurred by her in her capital asset in the transaction in which she acquired the right for which she realised the cash. In our opinion, the submissions of the learned advocate for the assessee cannot be said to be without any substance. However, we are not inclined to interfere with the computation of the cost of acquisition of right shares as made by the Tribunal at Rs. 6.25 per share as against Rs. 1.79 taken by the Income-tax Officer, since it has been submitted on behalf of the assessee that the assessee is prepared to accept it. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. AJIT K. SENGUPTA J.-I agree.
-
1992 (1) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charge On Property, Estate Duty, Garnishee Order ... ... ... ... ..... 00. But the defendant ought to have paid at least the balance of Rs. 2,500 to the plaintiff after January 13, 1978. Anyway, now, since learned counsel for the appellant also states that a decree for the balance could be given and since the said balance now actually comes to Rs. 2,542.56 (that is, Rs. 16,800 minus Rs. 14,257.44 said to have been paid by the defendant to the estate duty authority, as per the plaint, a decree could be given now for the said sum of Rs. 2,542.56). It is fair that the plaintiff should also be given interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum from the said date January 13, 1978, till realisation. In the result, the judgment and decree of the court below are hereby modified by restricting the decree granted by the court below only to the above said sum of Rs. 2,542.56 with interest on the said amount at the rate of six per cent. per annum from January 13, 1978, till realisation. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 25 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se of ITO v. A V. Thomas and Co. 1986 160 ITR 818 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 1991 188 ITR 277. In the result, this special civil application is allowed. The order (exhibit) dated January 6, 1983, under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act passed by the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle VII, Ahmedabad, demanding interest of Rs. 5,10,378 from the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. At the time of admission, this court has passed the following interim order Rule expedited. Interim relief refused on the condition that in case the petitioner succeeds ultimately, the amount of Rs. 5,10,378 shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12 per annum on the said amount. In view of the aforesaid interim order, the respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 5,10,378 with interest at the rate of 12 per annum on the said amount.
-
1992 (1) TMI 24 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... rected the Income-tax Officer not to deduct the value of the Central subsidy received from the Central Government from the cost of the assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation ? Learned counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in the light of this court s judgment in CIT v. Diamond Dies Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. 1988 172 ITR 655. The question is so answered.
-
1992 (1) TMI 23 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ed deduction in respect of the said expenditure of Rs. 16,14,703 under section 35B(1)(a). We, therefore, cannot uphold the view of the Tribunal in that regard. The result, therefore, is that we uphold the view taken by the Tribunal except in regard to the expenditure incurred for fabrication of towers. As held above, so far as the expenditure of Rs. 16,14,703 incurred for fabrication of towers in Nepal and Laos is concerned, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B. We, therefore, answer the question which has been referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee in respect of all the items Of expenditure mentioned in the question except the last item regarding fabrication of towers. So far as expenditure of Rs. 16,14,703 incurred for fabrication of towers in Nepal and Laos is concerned, the question referred to us for our opinion, is answered in the negative and against the Revenue. Reference answered, accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... sumptive clauses are required to be satisfied before the competent authority can assume valid jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for acquisition under section 269D/ 269C. In view of the settled legal position, in our view, as there was no material with respondent No. 1 to suggest that some amount over and above the consideration shown in the sale deed as a matter of fact passed between the vendors and the petitioner or that it was with the objects mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 269C, the initiation of the proceedings under section 269C is invalid. Having regard to the above discussion, it is not necessary to deal with the other contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned notice (exhibit M ) dated March 21, 1983, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are restrained from taking further action in pursuance of the said notice. Rule m de absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Capital Loss, Charitable Purpose, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... ferred its right to the assets in favour of a third party whereby the right has extinguished. The asset itself is extinguished. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. s case 1991 191 ITR 647, we are unable to sustain the view taken by the Tribunal. Consequently, we cannot uphold the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessee incurred any long-term loss under the head Capital gains in respect of the said debenture-stock. If the very asset is irretrievably lost, it cannot be said that the assessee suffered loss under the head Capital gains , long-term or short-term. The extinction or loss of the asset does not fall within the import of the expression extinguishment of the rights occurring in section 2(47). For the reasons aforesaid, we answer both questions Nos. 1 and 2 arising from R. A. No. 1476/(Cal) of 1986 in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1992 (1) TMI 20 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... o, in view of section 22(4A) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, the liability to pay interest because of the postponement of payment of sales tax assessed by making it payable by instalments cannot be treated in the light of that decision as penalty but only as an addition to the amount of liability of sales tax. In our opinion, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. s case 1980 123 ITR 429, fully supports our view. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Department and hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 30,246, being interest paid on arrears of sales tax, was an allowable deduction for the assessment year 1975-76 when the liability to pay interest was statutory and was ascertainable to the assessee for the earlier years, vide Commissioner of Sales Tax s order dated October 8, 1971. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1992 (1) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
House Property, Industrial Company, Industrial Undertaking, Manufacture Or Produce, Manufacture Or Production
-
1992 (1) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority, Assessment Year, Exclusion From Limitation, Finding Or Direction, Income Tax Act, Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment, Relief In Respect
-
1992 (1) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... of section 10(2)(vi) of the old Income-tax Act. The context of the Madhya Pradesh decision is entirely different. It pertains to the amount of Rs. 40,245 spent over repairs to factory and godown immediately after its purchase for Rs. 20,000. Considering the nature of work carried out, its extent and the time, it was held that the expenditure was of capital nature. We are unable to see how the ratio of any of these three decisions can have application to the matter at hand. This takes us to the consideration of the case of R. B. Shreeram and Co. (P.) Ltd. 1968 67 ITR 428 (AP) on the basis of which the present reference has been made by the Tribunal. It is unnecessary to deal in detail with the said decision since it has been expressly overruled by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nathmal Bankatlal Parikh and Co. 1980 122 ITR 168. Under the circumstances, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income From House Property, Interest Income, Lease Rent, Mercantile System, Other Sources, Transfer Of Property
-
1992 (1) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deemed Accrual, Lease Rent, Mercantile System, Other Sources, Right To Receive ... ... ... ... ..... in an appropriate case. The Department cannot compel the assessee to adopt the mercantile system of accounting. As a matter of fact, it was not adopted. Under the circumstances, the income from lease rent could not be taxed on accrual basis. In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. 1986 161 ITR 524, the Supreme Court has ruled that the amount which is under real and substantial dispute in a court cannot be included as income on accrual basis. In the case of J. K. Bankers v. CIT 1974 94 ITR 107, the Allahabad High Court has held that since income from lease money falls to be assessed as income from other sources, it was open to the assessee to follow any system of accounting in respect of that source. It is further held that the assessee may follow even different systems of accounting in respect of different sources. Under the circumstances, both these questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessees. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Failure To File Return, Levy Of Penalty, Penalty Proceedings, Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... 1981 127 ITR 252 (Cal). The former decision is under section 5(7C) of the old Income-tax Act (which is in pari materia with section 129) read with section 28(3) (which is in pari materia with section 274). The latter decision is under sections 271(1)(a), 274 and 275 of the Income-tax Act. The former case lays down that even though section 5(7C) does not in terms provide for any notice to the assessee by the succeeding officer informing him of his intention to continue the proceedings from the stage at which his predecessor had left it, it provides for such an intimation by necessary implication. The latter case lays down that even when there was no response from the assessee to the notice under section 274 issued by the predecessor authority, the successor authority has no authority to pass an order of penalty without giving the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard. Hence, the question is answered in the affirmative, and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Income From Letting Out, Income Tax Act, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... hat adoption of such a course of splitting up, wherever possible, will in law be fair and permissible, having regard to the scanty material before us, it will not be proper to undertake the exercise of adjudicating upon the exact quantum of deduction. In our view, the ratio of CIT v. South Arcot District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. 1989 176 ITR 117 (SC) will have to be applied to each item (if necessary by making further inquiry) and only then the correct figure can be arrived at. The only reasonable course open, under the circumstances, is to direct the adjudication of actual deduction by the Tribunal. Hence we record the answer to the question as under The assessee was entitled to the exemption of full income of commission received under the fertiliser agreement it was entitled to exemption of only a part of the income of the commission received under the paddy agreement, the exact quantum of which the Tribunal to decide in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
....
|
