|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 240 Records
-
1992 (11) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business, Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... nd the statutory requirement for transfer of such amount to the Labour Welfare Fund shall have its sanction and the employer is bound by the operation of law to transfer the liability to the statutory fund. The entire context and perspective in which the Supreme Court pronounced the decision are radically different from the facts in the instant case. This court in CIT v. Agarpara Co. Ltd. 1986 158 ITR 78, has held that assuming that extinguishment can take place on the bilateral act of the parties, such act can be inferred from the conduct of the debtor and the creditor. It need not be a positive act or a positive conduct. Surrounding circumstances may furnish proof of cessation or remission of the liabilities. We find no reason for making any departure from the view this court took in Agarpara Co. Ltd. s case 1986 158 ITR 78. In the premises, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1992 (11) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Relief, Labour Or Personal Service ... ... ... ... ..... German technicians had rendered some service in India for the purpose of setting up the plant and making the plant workable. That service was in connection with and pursuant to the contract to sell a belt vulcanizing press. Therefore, such service cannot be treated as labour or personal services as mentioned in article 3 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation. In my judgment, the writ petition must succeed. The supplier has a permanent establishment in Germany where the press was manufactured. Certain services were rendered in connection with the setting up of that press in India. This cannot be treated as personal service in any way even if the agreement for rendering service was embodied in a separate agreement. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds. Rule is made absolute. There will be an order as prayed for in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. The refund must be given within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1992 (11) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction U/S 84, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... nsulation board unit need not be deducted as liability while computing the capital employed by the new industrial undertaking manufacturing insulation boards. Question No. 2 In our view the entire amount of advances made by the hard-board unit to the insulation board unit in the relevant assessment years is deductible for the purpose of calculating the capital under section 84 of the Act since there has been no change in the character of the advance, namely, that they represented loans taken from outside parties. The questions are, accordingly, answered as above. In our view, the approach of the Income-tax Officer is the correct approach. However, while giving effect to this order, the authorities shall examine as to whether any amount of advance in excess of the sum of Rs. 24,40,406 was also by way of loan from outside parties and accordingly decide the issue of granting relief under section 84 of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... to consider the assessee s claim for registration afresh on the merits according to law, after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity to make an application for condonation of delay in making the application. In our view, the Tribunal s direction is wholly unexceptionable and there was no need to make a reference of this matter to this court under section 256(1). Apart from whether a power of condonation was available to the Income-tax Officer or not, in a situation like this, the view taken by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are, to say the least, hyper-technical and rigid. We wholly endorse the approach of the Tribunal in the matter that the issue had to be reconsidered by the Income-tax Officer after giving a fresh opportunity to the assessee for hearing his explanation, if any. In the result, the question referred for our opinion is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Discretionary Trust, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... te discretion, think fit to give her out of the corpus of the trust, when it was distributed. In the case of the assessee before us also, the terms of the trust are similar. The daughter-in-law, Pushpaben Gunvantrai, has no right under the trust deed, except to receive such portion as may be distributed by the trustees at their discretion, upon the completion of the term of the trust. Following the reasoning adopted by this court in CIT v. B. A. Sanghrajka Trust 1990 181 ITR 484, the questions referred for the opinion of this court are answered as under Question No. 1 In relation to the previous year ended March 31, 1972, the beneficiaries of the income under the trust were the settlor s grand-daughters, Chhaya and Sangeeta. Pushpaben, the wife of the settlor s son, was not a beneficiary. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business, Income ... ... ... ... ..... eld that this amount had been received by the assessee from the corporation on behalf of its principals and the interest merely represented an accretion to the capital amount. The basic character of both would, therefore, be the same as far as the assessability to tax in the hands of the assessee was concerned. In our view, both the capital amount of Rs. 4,78,522 and the accretion by way of interest of Rs. 66,350 thereupon, was retained in the hands of the assessee as the assessee, when called upon, was liable to refund the same to its principals. This is the reason given by the Tribunal which also held that the interest also was not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. We are in agreement with this view. In the result, the two questions referred for the opinion of this court are answered as under Question No. 1 Is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 Is also answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deemed Income, Income, Time Barred Debt ... ... ... ... ..... ditor is barred, the existence of the debt is merely theoretical where the creditor has not turned up for a good length of time and the conduct of the assessee also demonstrates that the creditor would not turn up with any claim. A barred debt cannot be any more treated as a debt where the assessee has unmistakably and unequivocally demonstrated his disinclination to liquidate such debt. The act of writing back is a clear indication as to the assessee s intention to disown obligation to pay. Following the decisions of this court in CIT v. Agarpara Co. Ltd. 1986 158 ITR 78, we hold that the unclaimed amounts written back and credited to the profit and loss account are properly taxable under section 41(1) of the Act as income arising from cessation or remission of liabilities. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1992 (11) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Summary Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... unt of tax has to be determined and thereafter in accordance with law, where the authorities decide to levy penalty, a notice has to be given as to whether penalty be not imposed. The purpose of determination of the amount of penalty imposable under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act as well as calculating the amount of tax is that the assets seized may be retained to that extent alone to safeguard the interest of the Department. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it was not necessary that a notice should have been given either to make the assessment order or to determine the amount of penalty or interest and what is required under sub-section (5) of section 132 of the Income-tax Act is that an order under it can only be made after affording a reasonable opportunity to the persons concerned of being heard and after making the enquiry prescribed and order be passed. Consequently, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... manner of challenge to the levy of interest by the assessee. If the challenge to the levy of interest under section 215 is on the ground that the assessee is not liable to the levy at all, the assessee is entitled to question such levy of interest in appeal. The Tribunal, therefore, is required to apply the ratio of the above Supreme Court case to the facts and circumstances of the present case and consider the question of appealability in the light of this judgment. In the premises, the second question is answered as follows The appeal by the assessee for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1971-72 against the levy of interest under section 215 to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was competent provided the Tribunal is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the assessee had challenged the levy on the ground that the assessee was not liable to the levy at all. The questions are answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Higher Rate, Market Value, Plant And Machinery, Priority Industry, Taxing Statutes
-
1992 (11) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Bonus Shares, Capital Reserve, Company Surtax, Computation Of Capital, Contingency Reserve, General Reserve, Reserve For Doubtful Debts, Super Profits Tax, Surtax Assessment
-
1992 (11) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Companies Profits Surtax, Company Surtax, Computation Of Capital Reserves ... ... ... ... ..... nd has been declared at the annual general meeting of the assessee-company. This liability does not relate back to any earlier date. In the case before the Division Bench, as no separate reserve had been created out of the profits of the company for payment of dividend in future, as on the first day of the accounting period, the Division Bench said that the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. s case 1981 132 ITR 559 would not apply. The general reserve as on the first day of the accounting period cannot, therefore, be reduced to the extent of a dividend which was subsequently declared and which was paid out of this general reserve. The ratio of this judgment directly applies to the facts of the present case where also no reserve had been separately created for payment of dividend on the first day of the accounting period. Hence, the question which is referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital, Fixed Deposit, Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... assessee. In the proceedings under the Business Profits Tax Act, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had upheld the action of the Income-tax Officer. However, in further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 76,92,566. In doing so, it followed its order passed in the income-tax proceedings. At the time of hearing of this reference, we have enquired of the Revenue as to whether the Revenue had preferred a reference application against the order of the Tribunal in the income-tax proceedings and the result thereof. We are told that in spite of the best efforts made by them, they are unable to furnish the said particulars. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was fully justified in following its order in the income-tax proceedings and deleting Rs. 76,92,566 from the excess profits of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Question Of Law, Wealth Tax Act, Wealth Tax Reference ... ... ... ... ..... ld the order of the Commissioner holding that the debt in question had become a bad debt, and as such it could not be included in the assessable wealth of the assessee. On the available materials, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in coming to this conclusion, and we do not see any referable question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. Though learned counsel for the Revenue strenuously contended that the Tribunal had not taken into account the letter of the assessee dated January 10, 1987, we find that that letter related only to the debts other than the debt in question, and in view of that, the Tribunal had not referred to that letter at all in the course of its order. The omission to refer to this letter by the Tribunal in the course of its order certainly cannot give rise to a question of law on this aspect, as one arising out of the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, dismiss the tax case petitions. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... taking before deducting the investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We do not see how this judgment has any application to the question before us. It is true that the Orissa High Court has referred to the ratio of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. s case 1978 113 ITR 84 (SC), but in our view, the discussion on Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. s case 1978 113 ITR 84 (SC) and whether it is attracted to the interpretation of section 80HH, will not have any bearing on the question before us, which, in our view, is directly covered by the ratio of the Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. s case 1978 113 ITR 84 (SC), in so far as it deals with the definition of total income and whether depreciation is required to be deducted for the purpose of determining the profits and gains attributable to any industry as set out under section 80E. In the premises, the question which is referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1992 (11) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ingly, accept the Departmental appeal, reverse the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restore that of the Income-tax Officer disallowing the loss of Rs. 17,640 in question. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee was fair enough to state that this reference may be disposed of on the facts found by the Tribunal. He also pointed out that the amount involved is not big. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, stated that in view of the undisputed facts found by the Tribunal, the assessee was not entitled to deduction of Rs. 17,640 and, therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in upholding the action of the income-tax authorities. On a due consideration of the submission of the parties and the material available on record, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal upholding the disallowance of Rs. 17,640. In this view of the matter, we answer the question in the negative and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Investment Company, Quoted Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... ny have to be valued in accordance with the provisions of the Wealth-tax Rules or the Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as the case may be. If, however, it is a non-investment company in that event the valuation has to be made in terms of rule 1D or the corresponding provision of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. This court has held in CWT v. India Exchange Traders Association 1992 197 ITR 356, that rule 1D will be applicable in the case of valuation of the shares of a non-investment company. For the reasons aforesaid, we decline to answer the question in this reference. We remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with the observations made in the said judgment. The Tribunal must first ascertain whether Aminchand Payarelal (P.) Ltd. is an investment company or not and thereafter shall, proceed to decide the question of valuation of the shares in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. --- I agree.
-
1992 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Acquisition of Immovable Property - whether immovable property would vest in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under section 269-1, upon a final order being made under section 269F(6) and consequently, whether a tenant governed by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, can be evicted from such property
-
1992 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on true interpretation of section 274, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to whom the case was referred prior to April 1, 1971, had jurisdiction to impose penalty - held that Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was correct in passing the penalty order
-
1992 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the provisions of Chapter XX-C are bad in law as there is no provision for giving the concerned parties an opportunity of being heard before an order is passed under the provisions of section 269UD of the said Chapter for the purchase by the Central Government of an immovable property agreed to be sold in an agreement of sale?
....
|
