|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 240 Records
-
1993 (1) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Embezzlement Loss, Loss From Embezzlement ... ... ... ... ..... a loss to the assessee to that extent. Looking from a businessman s angle, we find it difficult to hold that such a loss is not incidental to the business of the assessee. We find it difficult to draw a distinction between embezzlement of the amount from the bank and theft of the amount from the cash box of the business man from his sales counter or business premises. What is material is whether the loss was caused to the assessee in the course of his business activity and closely connected with his business. If that is so, it will be an allowable deduction in computing the profits . In the instant case, we are satisfied that it is so and that being so, the loss suffered by the assessee is clearly a loss which is deductible in the computation of income under section 28(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative that is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Under the facts and circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction, Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... on. In that view of the matter, the first question referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Similarly, the deduction claimed in the present case cannot fall under Clause (iii) of section 57 as it is not an expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning dividend income. The assessee s income was the income from dividend that accrued to him in terms of rupees on the same being declared by the company. The amount claimed by the assessee was spent or lost by him only after the dividend income had accrued to him. Hence, clause (iii) also has no application. That being so, the second question also has to be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue. It is an agreed position that in view of the answer to the above two questions in favour of the Revenue, answer to question No. 3 is not necessary. The same is, therefore, not answered. The reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 148 of the Act. However, whether assessment proceedings are to be completed under section 142 or section 144 or section 148, an opportunity of hearing will have to be given to the petitioners before making assessment and, in any case, the assessment cannot be completed without considering the cause shown by the petitioners and the materials furnished by the petitioners before the Assessing Officers in support of their contentions. Our conclusion is that the assessment proceedings should be completed in accordance with law now as indicated above. As the audit reports prepared by the Government auditors are also available now as indicated by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Assessing Officers shall also take the same into consideration. Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed and directions in terms referred to above are hereby issued to the respondents who shall complete the assessment proceedings in accordance with law as early as possible. Costs easy.
-
1993 (1) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... person is liable to income-tax in respect of the house property as well as the business carried on therein. In the circumstances of the present case, that cannot happen as the income from business is taxable in the hands of the individuals while the income from house property is taxable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. The fact that the assessee had not been charging any rent from the partnership firm or that in the past the notional income from that property was not being assessed as income of the assessee was not relevant and could not override the specific provisions of section 22. We, therefore, hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the user of the house property by the partnership firm was user thereof by the assessee for purposes of the business carried on by the assessee. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 36 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Best Judgment Assessment, Finding Of Fact, Rejection Of Accounts ... ... ... ... ..... g nature. As observed by the Supreme Court in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1989 177 ITR 377 at 390 The circumstances that the agreement in so far as it placed limitations on the right of the assessee in dealing with the know-how and the conditions as to non-partibility, confidentiality and secrecy of the know-how incline towards the inference that the right pertained more to the use of the know-how than to its exclusive acquisition. Thus, from a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the expenditure of Rs. 20,79,513 incurred by the assessee for getting the technical know-how and other assistance represented revenue expenditure and was allowable as a deduction in the computation of the income of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 35 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... . But equally true is the fact that the assessee had incurred in the two years relevant to the assessment years under consideration amounts of Rs. 10,60,827 and Rs. 1,46,312 by way of expenditure on freight, customs duty, etc., for bringing the said machinery from New York to Bombay where it was installed. There is no dispute that this amount spent by the assessee is not revenue expenditure but is an expenditure of capital nature. That being so, this amount would form part of the cost of the asset for the purpose of depreciation. The amount of Rs. 10,60,827, therefore, has to be added to the original cost of acquisition in the assessment for the assessment year 1964-65 and the sum of Rs. 1,46,312 has to be further added thereto in the next assessment year, i.e., 1965-66. In view of the foregoing discussion, question No. 4 is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Under the facts and circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 34 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Industrial Undertaking, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... g of the statutory definition. The manufacturing of bricks for execution of the works contract is wholly inconsequential for determination of the issue involved because it is merely an ancillary or incidental activity. The same view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in recent case reported in Smt. Shantaben Chinubhai v. CWT 1992 196 ITR 44 by placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd. 1986 160 ITR 134. The Delhi High Court itself has distinguished its earlier judgment in the case of National Projects Construction Corporation Limited 1969 74 ITR 465 (Delhi), while considering a question identical to the one at hand. In view of the discussions made above, the question involved is answered in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Income-tax Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, for passing consequential orders. S. K. CHATTOPADHYAYA J.-I agree.
-
1993 (1) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gallantry Award Not Approved By Government, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... sis of an instance which is nearest in point of time to the valuation date and relates to a nearly similarly situated land. Fortunately, in this case, the instance which became available was of the very land in respect of which the valuation was to be made. On a consideration of the entire material on record, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in placing reliance on the award dated October 3, 1973, in respect of the land in question. The said instance had much greater persuasive value compared to instances relating to other parcels of land in other localities, though statedly situated near the land in question. This does not amount to rejection of the relevant and admissible material on record by any arbitrary or perverse order. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal is based on an evaluation of the various factors which were relevant for determining the value of the land in terms of section 7 of the Act. We decide the questions referred to this court accordingly.
-
1993 (1) TMI 32 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... section 13(3)(d), which includes any relative of the author, can have no application in the case of the employees of the author because relative means a person connected by birth or marriage with another person. (See New Lexicon Webster s Dictionary). The person having any other relationship pursuant to a contract like that of employer and employee cannot be said to be a relative. Therefore, the application of part of the income of the trust for the benefit of the employees of TISCO and their relatives cannot disentitle the trust from claiming exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. I also assess costs of Rs. 1,100 (rupees one thousand and one hundred only) payable by the Department to the assessee. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in terms of section 260 of the Act. S. K. CHATTOPADHYAYA J.-I agree.
-
1993 (1) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Power To Admit Additional Evidence, Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ect the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal-Income-tax Application No. 756 of 1982 to its file and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law. Ordinarily, the Tribunal should dispose of the appeal only on the basis of materials on record and available before it and about which parties to the appeal the assessee and the Revenue-had notice or knowledge. This is an important aspect to be borne in mind, since any other approach will be unfair or arbitrary and also unreasonable. It is competent to the Tribunal to admit additional or new evidence in the appeal in accordance with law and for reasons stated. But the parties to the appeal should have fair and proper notice and opportunity in relation thereto. Ad hocism in that regard cannot be countenanced in law. We make this position clear. A copy of this judgment, under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, forthwith.
-
1993 (1) TMI 30 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act which relate to the procedure for recovery of tax are indicative of the fact that it is open to an Income-tax Officer to issue a requisition under section 132A of the Income-tax Act also to a court. In our opinion, this argument is wholly fallacious. The Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act lays down the procedure for recovery of tax which has been determined after due adjudication. The procedure has been prescribed for the recovery of the said tax and powers have been given to the Tax Recovery Officer to issue an attachment order in respect of the property of the defaulter. These provisions are not indicative of any such interpretation as urged by learned counsel, In the circumstances, in our opinion, no assistance can be drawn from the procedure specified in the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... se of CIT v. Challapalli Sugars Ltd. 1970 77 ITR 392. The Tribunal, however, following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. 1966 61 ITR 799, upheld the action of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the said case, the Calcutta High Court had held that certain expenditure incurred prior to the setting up of the factory has to be capitalised. As there were divergent views on the issue involved, the Tribunal referred the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the Revenue was fair enough to state that, since the Supreme Court has reversed the aforesaid decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT 1975 98 ITR 167 (SC), the reference has to be answered in favour of the assessee. Following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Electric Supply Undertaking, Priority Industry ... ... ... ... ..... pplied the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. 1978 113 ITR 84 (SC), and held that the interest income earned on short-term deposits of money not immediately required for the business was attributable to the business of the assessee which was priority industry. On a due consideration of the submissions made by the parties and after adverting to the facts found by the Tribunal as well as the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. 1978 113 ITR 84 (SC) and of this court in the case of United Carbon India Ltd. 1991 190 ITR 622, we do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue. In our view, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the aforesaid receipts would qualify for deduction under section 80-I of the Act. We would, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 27 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Depreciation, New Industrial Undertaking, Scientific Research, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... h to the extent that such cost had been written off under section 10(2)(xiv) of the 1922 Act or under section 35(1) and (2) of the 1961 Act, and there was no difficulty at all in the interpretation of the provisions. The 1980 amendment has effected no change at all in the provisions except to set out more clearly and categorically what the provisions said even earlier. In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, question No. 1 will have to be answered in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 152 ITR 308, the Supreme Court has held that borrowed moneys and debts are required to be excluded while computing capital employed while considering the claim of the assessee under section 801 of the Act. Therefore, question No.2 will have to be answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the R venue and against the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... of the claim made by the assessee in respect of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee as allowable deduction. The Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. ITO 1981 131 ITR 597, has held that sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be invoked only where the consideration for the transfer of a capital asset has been understated by the assessee. It has also been held that section 52(1) does not deem income to accrue or to be received which in fact never accrued or was never received. It is also held that the onus in establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the Revenue. In view of this judgment of the Supreme Court, question No. 1 will have to be answered in the negative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 will have to be answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 25 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... hat the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act applied in the case of the assessee in view of Explanation 3 to that section ? (3) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the case of the assessee was not hit by the provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Income-tax Act ? The point that arises for consideration in this reference is concluded by a decision of this court in CIT v. Insaniyat Trust 1988 173 ITR 248, wherein it has been held that, where a charitable trust receives as donation shares in a company in which the persons mentioned in section 13(3) have substantial interest, the trust cannot be said to have invested its funds in purchasing the shares in question. In such cases, section 13(2)(h) will have no application. Following that decision, we answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... ellate order, on the power of the Income-tax Officer exercisable under section 154 of the Act. We find no justification to extend the principle stated in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. v. ITO 1981 130 ITR 710 (Cal) and CIT v. K. Venkateswar Rao 1988 169 ITR 330 (AP), to a case where the mistake itself was not a debatable issue at all. In the result, we hold that the Income-tax Officer in this case did not lack jurisdiction to rectify the mistake of the omission to add super tax in the assessment order, and the Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessment order totally merged in the appellate order since the issue was not decided in the appellate order. The question referred to this court is answered in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The reference is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (1) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
False Statement In Verification, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... e-tax (Appeals) is set aside, the Revenue will be entitled to file fresh complaints. The said view is in accordance with the decision of this court in Criminal M. C. No. 1047 of 1991. The Revenue has not yet filed any reference under section 256(2) of the Act. In view of the fact that, so long as the decision of the Tribunal is in force, the criminal court cannot come to a contrary conclusion, as the effect of the decision of the Tribunal is to take away the very basis of the prosecution, the prosecution is liable to be quashed safeguarding the right of the Revenue to file a fresh complaint in case the order of the Tribunal is set aside consequent upon the decision under section 256(2) of the Act. Therefore, annexure-I complaint is quashed without prejudice to the rights of the respondent to file a fresh complaint if the order of the Tribunal is set aside consequent upon an order under section 256(2) of the Act. In the result, the Criminal M. C. is allowed as indicated above.
-
1993 (1) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Fines And Penalties ... ... ... ... ..... 45 of 1978-79 for the assessment year 1974-75 will have to be given a separate number. The point similar to the one which arises for consideration in these references arose for our consideration in I. T. R. No. 73 of 1980 (Orient Trading Co. v. CIT 1993 202 ITR 481). In that reference, we have held that payment made under section 45 of the Act is in the nature of penalty and is not in the nature of compensatory interest. We have further held that, for that reason, the payment made by way of penalty cannot be allowed as deduction, it being payment for infraction of law. Following the judgment in that reference, decided on January 20, 21, 1983, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In view of our judgment in I. T. R. No. 73 of 1980 (Orient Trading Co. v. CIT 1993 202 ITR 481), we do not think it fit to answer questions Nos. 3 and 4. These references are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (1) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... o challenge to the above finding. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal cannot be found fault with for considering contentions which were not put forward by either side since the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, that this court failed to bear in mind the decisions in CIT v. Shri Pawan Kumar Dalmia 1987 168 ITR 1 and CIT v. Saraf Trading Corporation 1987 167 ITR 909 in the matter of levy of penalty, that the alleged concealment found by the authorities was on the basis of mistaken facts and that there was no concealment, even though in the assessment proceedings, certain additions had been made. On the above basis, it was submitted that it is a case fit for a decision by the Supreme Court. We heard counsel in detail. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the point, we are not inclined to certify that this is a fit case for appeal to the. Supreme Court. In the result, the petition fails and it is dismissed.
....
|
