|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 226 Records
-
1992 (10) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income ... ... ... ... ..... ay have to be taken into consideration while computing the business income of the assessee under the relevant provisions of the Act of 1961 including the provisions contained under section 28 thereof. Looking to the frame of the question and our view that it is not necessary for us to decide and indicate the relevant provisions of the taxing statute under which the abovesaid amount could have been considered for the purpose of tax, we would only say that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the view that the abovesaid amount could have been taken into consideration only under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In our opinion, the abovesaid amount can be considered for the purpose of taxing the income of the assessee under the relevant provisions of the Act of 1961 including section 28 thereof. We, therefore, answer the abovesaid question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deemed Dividend, Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... ainst double taxation. As we have already pointed out, that principle is subject to the qualification that, if the intent of the Legislature is otherwise clearly discernible, then double taxation is permissible. We think that this is one of those harsh cases where, apart from sympathy, the assessee can get no relief from the court. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered thus For the assessment year 1958-59 Question No. 1 In the affirmative and against the assessee. Question No. 2 In the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 3 In the negative and against the assessee. For the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 Question No. 1 In the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 2 In the negative and against the assessee. For the assessment years 1962-63 to 1968-69 Question No. 1 In the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 2 In the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Dividend Reserve, Gratuity Reserve, Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... utilised. In view of the decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 559, the dividend reserve account which has been utilised for payment of dividend will have to be treated as a provision and not as a reserve. If there is any excess amount in the dividend reserve account, then such excess can be treated as a reserve in the light of the above judgment. Question No. 2 is, therefore, answered as follows The amount in the dividend reserve account to the extent that it has been utilised for payment of dividend is a provision and cannot be included in the capital computation of the assessee-company for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Any excess amount in this account can be included in the capital computation for the above purpose. When the matter goes back before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may ascertain the quantum of such excess amount, if any, according to law. Question No. 2 is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 23 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ure or production of an article or thing, to be entitled to investment allowance under section 32A ? The principle applicable is governed by the ratio of the decision in Shankar Construction Co. v. CIT 1991 189 ITR 463 (Kar). In fact, in another case, this court has already considered the applicability of the principle to the case of extraction of granite. Following the aforesaid decision, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1992 (10) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Annual Value, Property ... ... ... ... ..... use by the assessee to its directors who used the same as their residence. On these facts, we quite agree with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the bungalow cannot be said to be governed by the provisions of the Act. Then, the question is whether the annual letting value determined by the Income-tax Officer and approved by the Appellate Tribunal is correct? On this question, purely a finding of fact has been recorded by the Appellate Tribunal. Considering the rental value of the adjacent properties, the Income-tax Officer determined the fair annual letting value of bungalow No. 906 at Rs. 6,000. It is not disputed by the assessee that the rent of the adjacent property was correctly stated by the Income-tax Officer. That being so, no exception can be taken to the fair annual letting value determined at Rs. 6,000. For the above reasons, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... this case, the Revenue, with full knowledge as to who was the real assessee, had not chosen to file the appeals against the real assessee, but filed them against a non-existent person. Under these circumstances, section 42C of the Act also cannot be called in aid by the Revenue. We also do not see any useful purpose being served by the amendment applications now filed, for, if ordered, they could at best, cure the defect in the cause title in the tax case petitions before this court and would not have the effect of bringing the real assessee on record as a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. As matters stand, the Revenue had preferred the appeals before the Tribunal and also the reference applications before this court, against a dead person who is not the assessee and such applications cannot, therefore, be countenanced. We, therefore, dismiss T. C. P. Nos. 215 and 216 of 1988, and T. C. M. P. Nos. 891 and 892 of 1992. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Limitation, Reserves And Provisions, Surtax, Surtax Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... not treated as a reserve . Therefore, these two amounts will have to be added to the aggregate of moneys borrowed and surpluses and reserves which have to be deducted from the cost of the assets under rule 2 for the purpose of determining the extent of diminution of capital under rule 2. Both the surplus in the profit and loss appropriation account as well as the provision for taxation account to the extent not treated as reserve , are to be so considered. This follows from the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 559, for determining reserves which have to be taken into account in capital computation under rule 1. Rule 2 deals, inter alia, with reserves not so covered. The two funds in question do not so qualify for inclusion under rule 1. They are surpluses and/or reserves falling under rule 2. Question No. 5 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rcise afresh, and we have focussed our attention on the issue in the background of transfer of technical knowledge and technical know-how. We derive fortification for our view from the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ciba s case 1968 69 ITR 692 and Alembic s case 1989 177 ITR 377 and the judgments of this court noticed earlier. We have, therefore, not made any reference to the judgments on general principles cited at the Bar. Mr. Jetley also desired to cite judgments of other High Courts which took a contrary view according to him. Since there are judgments of the Supreme Court and of our own High Court, by which we are bound, we have not allowed him to cite the judgments of other High Courts. In the premises, the two questions referred for our opinion are answered as under Question No. 1 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 Needs no answer in view of our answer to question No. 1. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onsideration of obligations incurred under the agreement dated November 28, 1961, and Re. 1, the debt was recoverable by the assessee-company as its own debt. The circumstances set out earlier show that the assessee was justified in treating it as a bad debt. In these circumstances, especially in view of the fact that income from the sales to Messrs. New Kaiser-I-Hind Mill was shown as the income of the assessee-company in its accounts, the debt arising as a result of non-payment of the sale price to the assessee has to be considered as a bad debt deductible by the assessee-company for the assessment year 1970-71 in terms of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Question No. 2 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 In view of our answer to question No. 2, it is not necessary for us to answer question No. 3, and we decline to answer the same. The questions referred to us are answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Annuity Deposit, Income ... ... ... ... ..... ayment to a nominee and a payment to the legal representative of a deceased depositor would all be payments under the provisions of section 280D. We respectfully-disagree with these observations of the Delhi High Court. Section 280D in terms refers only to repayment to the depositor. All that it says is that such repayment to a depositor will be subject to other provisions of the Chapter and the Scheme. Section 280D does not cover any payment to either a nominee or to a legal representative of a deceased depositor. These are covered by other provisions of Chapter XXII-A and the Scheme framed under that Chapter. Therefore, the definition of income under section 2(24) does not cover a repayment of annuity deposit received by a nominee or a legal representative. In the premises, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1992 (10) TMI 16 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the partnership firm could be impressed with the character of joint family property. Following the said decision, another Division Bench of this court, vide order dated February 24, 1992, in the case of the assessee s partner, namely, CIT v. Madan Lal Mehra 1992 198 ITR 287, Income-tax References Nos. 11 to 13 of 1982, came to the conclusion that the share of income was rightly directed to be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. Earlier, in the case of assessee, Jagdish Chand himself, on September 24, 1987, in Income-tax References Nos. 57 to 62 Of 1980, CIT v. Jagdish Chand Khanna, another Division Bench of this court had come to the similar conclusion and had held that the partner of a firm was entitled to impress his share in the partnership with the character of joint family property. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the answer to the aforesaid question of law has to be in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Provision, Reserve, Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... eby resulting in an increase in the reserves of the company. Our High Court has held that this extra amount cannot be considered as a reserve. The case before us is the opposite case where the assessee has made an excess provision for depreciation. This is an extra amount which is available to the assessee which it has retained. Hence, this amount will clearly go to augment the reserves of the company for the purpose of calculating the capital base of the assessee-company under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. In the premises, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue, save and except that if it is found that there is any excess provision for taxation, the same will constitute a reserve and shall be included in computing the capital base of the assessee for the purposes of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. Question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Building, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... rvoirs, which are concrete structures, form an integral part of the filtration plant. Hence, they have to be treated as plant, and, as such, they would be eligible for development rebate. Regarding question No. 3, Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules deals with the schedule of tax and depreciation admissible. Under category 111, machinery and plant are entitled to depreciation as follows Machinery and plant (not being a ship)- (i) General rate applicable to machinery and plant (not being a ship) for which no special rate has been prescribed under item (ii) hereinbelow. Item (ii) 10 percent. does not cover tanks and reservoirs. Hence, the rate of depreciation applicable would be ten per cent. and not five per cent. The questions, therefore, are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and Question No. 3 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Penalty, Tax In Default ... ... ... ... ..... ection 221(1) of the Act. Emphasising the definition between the character of tax and interest , the Calcutta High Court pointed out that, under section 221, penalty can be imposed only when the assessee is in default in making payment of tax. Since the expression tax has been defined in section 2(43) of the Act, there would be no scope for any argument that interest is additional tax . The principle of this judgment would apply equally to the case of the assessee before us. In the case of the assessee, the contradistinction is between tax and penalty . In our view, therefore, there was no warrant for imposition of penalty under section 221(1) by the Income-tax Officer for a default or deemed default on the part of the assessee in payment of penalty levied against him under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the result, the question referred for the opinion of this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... ssion is not correct. A close examination of these judgments will reveal that reference to the absence of limitation in the rule is only factual. There is no scope to read in those judgments a ratio that limitation could have been legally prescribed in the rule in the absence of any specific power to that effect. The Supreme Court decisions referred to above are clear. They specifically speak of the rules and not the form. In principle also no distinction between the form and the rule can be drawn to judge the extent of delegation under section 11(2)(a) where the language does not permit delegation of power to prescribe limitation to give notice. The conclusion is thus inevitable that the Income-tax Rules could not fix a time-limit for submitting the application in Form No. 10 under rule 17 and, therefore, the Tribunal was correct in its conclusion. Under the circumstances, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Actual Cost, Assessment Year, Attributable To, Business Expenditure, Capital Employed, Computation Of Capital, Expenditure Incurred, Expenditure On Advertisement, New Industrial Undertaking, Preliminary Expenses, Sales Promotion, Special Deduction, Wealth Tax
-
1992 (10) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... y the RIICO to the petitioner. The expenditure is in relation to a fixed capital/asset and not to a circulating capital. The fixed capital is that which the entrepreneur turns into profit by keeping the same in the business. The character of the development charges, therefore, would be in respect of an asset of which enduring benefit has been availed of by the assessee. The development charges makes the land in a workable position so that the entrepreneur can establish its unit and such expenditure is once for all. It cannot be considered to be an advantage of limited duration. The nature of the advantage in the commercial sense is in the capital field. Therefore, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the development charges paid by the assessee is an expenditure of capital nature and is not allowable. Accordingly, we answer the reference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Failure To File Return, Such Person ... ... ... ... ..... e any further notice to them under section 22(2) before levying any penalty upon the assessees. In that view of the matter, question No. 1 will have to be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. Question No. 2 is also answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. Question No. 3 is also answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the asessees. There will be no order as to costs. As eight separate appeals were filed in each case and eight separate references were made in each case, the Tribunal ought to have made separate references in respect of each of the assessment years. As that has not been done by the Tribunal, we direct the office to give separate numbers to the references treating reference No. 1 as reference for the assessment year 1963-64, and likewise, to give separate numbers to other references for different years. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1992 (10) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction In Respect, Standard Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ch have been granted by the Tribunal. By the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, the following Explanation has been added to section 16(i) with effect from April 1, 1975 Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause In view of the amendment of the Act, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... ty? The late Shri Mathuradas Bajaj died on July 23, 1961. His sons voluntarily filed an estate duty account on October 25, 1971, i.e., after more than ten years of the death. Assessment was completed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty on April 29, 1973. The Appellate Controller cancelled the assessment as time-barred under section 73A of the Estate Duty Act. The said order was maintained by the Tribunal. The provisions of section 73A are quite clear Initiation can be either by a notice or by filing a return. Neither of the two has taken place within five years of the death of the deceased. Under the circumstances, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. No order as to costs.
....
|
