|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 304 Records
-
1993 (3) TMI 64 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of reference to the High Court. But, before the Supreme Court, the only contention which was raised on behalf of the assessee was as to whether the payment which was made was in the nature of revenue expenditure and thus permissible deduction. In the last but one paragraph, the Supreme Court has observed as under (at page 44) The present is a case relating to the application of income to discharge a liability incurred not in the course of running the business but a liability undertaken for the purpose of acquiring the sole selling agency right which was indisputably an asset of capital nature. This decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, cannot help the Revenue. For the reasons stated above, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of this answer, question No. 2 is not required to be answered and therefore, we decline to answer the same. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 63 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... 311, wherein it was held that section 16A permits the Wealth-tax Officer to make a reference to the valuation cell for the purpose of making an assessment and if no proceedings were pending before the Wealth-tax Officer then no reference can be made to the District Valuation Officer and he has no power to follow a reverse process. Reference to the valuation cell cannot be followed by reassessment proceedings. In view of the decision of this court which is also the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Uma Debi Jhawar v. WTO 1982 136 ITR 662, the Bombay High Court in Smt. Bella Cajeton Travasso v. WTO (Third) 1987 166 ITR 49 and the Karnataka High Court in K.M. Ramdas Prabhu v. WTO (First) 1987 166 ITR 706, we are of the view that the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner quashing the reassessment proceedings under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years under consideration.
-
1993 (3) TMI 62 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... ome it has specifically done so. In section 161, there is no such exclusion. To read such an exclusion will require the reading of the word income as income other than the capital gain which will amount to adding words to the statute which is not a permissible mode of interpretation of statutory provisions. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that section 161 applies to all income including income failing under the head Capital gains . That being so, we find no justification for treating capital gain for the purpose of assessment differently from other income. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the income falling under the head Capital gain was not allocable amongst the nine beneficiaries. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., 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 (3) TMI 61 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing exhibit P-4 made before the Commissioner. What the petitioner wants this court to do is to pass an interlocutory order when the substantive motion is pending before the Commissioner of Income tax. In other words, this court should deal with the interlocutory matters when the main proceeding is pending before the Commissioner, without even a formal motion before that authority. A curious procedure indeed, though I find such applications are proliferating. The Commissioner of Income-tax is the competent authority to whom the request for stay should have been made pending exhibit P-4. The petitioner has not chosen to do so. In the absence of a demand, much less refusal by the Commissioner of Income-tax to pass an interim order pending exhibit P-4, the petitioner has no cause of action to approach this court with a prayer to direct proceedings for recovery to be stayed pending exhibit P-4. The original petition is misconceived and is absolutely bereft of any merit. Dismissed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 60 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Plant, Technical Know-how ... ... ... ... ..... an amount of Rs. 20,000 out of the total sum of Rs. 45,215 could be treated as referable to the business as well as interest and dividend income. It is also pointed out that the assessee had already capitalised 80 per cent. of the expenses which they considered as on capital account and that the entire amount of Rs. 45,215 was on revenue account. This claim of the assessee is not seen to have been denied. The Tribunal was, therefore, not correct in treating Rs. 25,215 as capital expenditure on the ground that the Tribunal had rendered such a finding in annexure F order. It is not so. Question No. 1 has, therefore, to be answered in favour of the Revenue. For the aforesaid reasons, question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1993 (3) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pital loss or a revenue loss. The court said that such a question was not within the scope of the appeal before the Tribunal. This judgment has no application to the present case where the application of rule 3 was directly before the Tribunal. In the premises, questions Nos. 3 and 4 at the in stance of the Revenue and question No. 2 at the instance of the assessee are answered as follows Rule 3 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act cannot be invoked in the assessee-company s case having regard to the fact that it issued bonus shares of the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs by capitalising a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs out of its general reserves. Therefore, the general reserves of the company on the first day of the previous year are not affected in any manner by the application of rule 3. Question No. 1 which is referred to us at the instance of the assessee is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The questions are answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 58 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income, Income Tax Investigation, Mutual Fund ... ... ... ... ..... ioner has a case that the first respondent is taking a vindictive attitude. I am sure that the first respondent will keep an open and fair mind as he has purported to do in the counter-affidavit and complete the proceedings judiciously and in a fair manner. I do not, therefore, find any illegality or lack of jurisdiction in the proceedings initiated by the first respondent. A writ will not issue from this court to restrain proceedings which are within jurisdiction and warranted by the provisions of the Act. The petitioner is not, therefore, entitled to any relief in relation thereto. They are all justified by the provisions of section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the same reason, the petitioner is not entitled to the declaration sought that it is exempted from payment of tax as a Nidhi, as the matter is still under investigation and its entitlement to exemption or otherwise will depend on the result of the investigation. The original petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 57 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deemed Gift, Gift Tax, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... he Tribunal does not disclose any error of law. The conclusion that there is no deemed gift coming within the scope of section 4(1)(c) was reached by the Tribunal for proper reasons. The Assessing Officer gets jurisdiction to invoke section 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act only to the extent to which the abandonment has not been found to his satisfaction to have been bona fide. There has not been such a finding by the Tribunal. Section 4(1)(c) cannot therefore be invoked in order to treat the abandonment of the rights by the assessee as a gift. Since no error has been committed by the Tribunal in its finding that the relinquishment of the rights by the assessee does not amount to a gift or a deemed gift, the request for a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law formulated in the original petition has to be declined. For the aforesaid reasons, the original petition is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed but without costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 56 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Amount Paid To Export Adviser, Business Expenditure, Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction
-
1993 (3) TMI 55 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... ot a partner of the firm. From the statement of Mammed Haji, it is clear that he knew that Smt. Kadishabi and Smt. Ayishabi were only benamidars. It has not been shown that such knowledge had been communicated to the Assessing Officer in the prescribed manner. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer was right in regarding the firm as not genuine and in refusing registration. That order was rightly confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Tribunal has committed an error of law in finding that the firm is genuine and in directing the Assessing Officer to grant registration. The finding was arrived at by totally ignoring the admission made by the parties. For the aforesaid reasons, both the questions are answered in the negative. i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, forthwith.
-
1993 (3) TMI 54 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... der section 54E as to whether the whole or any part of the capital gain on the transfer of a long-term capital asset shall be exempt from taxation. If the whole of such income is not exempt, the assessing authority shall determine the income chargeable under the head Capital gains , and, thereafter, there shall be deduction as provided under section 80T, that is to say, if there is no such income chargeable to tax after exemption under section 54E, the application of section 80T does not arise. For the reasons stated above, section 54E shall be applied first, and thereafter section 80T may or may not be applicable depending upon the quantum of exemption under section 54E. Under these circumstances, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court will be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal. Reference is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 53 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... suance of a return filed under section 139. 14.2 The Amending Act has amended section 80 of the Act to provide that such loss shall not be allowed to be carried forward and set off unless such loss is determined in pursuance of a return filed within the time allowed under section 139(1) for furnishing a voluntary return of income or within such further time as may be allowed by the Income tax Officer. 14.3 The amendment takes effect from April 1, 1985, and will, accordingly, apply in relation to any loss for assessment year 1985-86 and subsequent years. (Section 18 of the Amending Act). We find that the position as clarified by the Board is based on the correct construction of the provisions. We also share the view that the amendment shall apply to loss arising in assessment year 1985-86 and not in the earlier years. In the premises, the second question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1993 (3) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment, Association Of Persons, Income, Status ... ... ... ... ..... rely in suspense account. In other words, it had not given up the hope of receiving the interest from the debtor. In the instant case, however, once the agreement dated January 28, 1972, was entered into between the assessee and Messrs. Metropolitan Hotels Limited and once Messrs. Metropolitan Hotels Limited has handed over plot H to the assessee, there was no question of any income arising therefrom which could be added in the total income of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee as under Question No. 1 The income from lease of plot H has to be assessed in the hands of each of the sixty-five co-owners as per their respective share and not in the status of an association of persons. The income by way of interest on the loans advanced to Messrs. Metropolitan Hotels Limited is to be assessed in the status of an association of persons. Question No. 2 In the negative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1993 (3) TMI 51 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Company, Dividends, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... bserved as under Rule 1(x), in our view, refers to the exclusion of only the net interest from the total income for arriving at the chargeable profits, that is to say, such interest covered by rule 1(x) as would form a part of the total income computed under the Income-tax Act. (emphasis ours). In the instant case, it cannot be disputed that Rs. 2,48,800 and Rs. 4,09,007 formed a part of the total income, respectively, for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, in the case of Messrs. Voltas Ltd., and Rs. 17,258 formed a part of the total income for the assessment year 1975-76, in the case of Messrs. Standard Mills Ltd., which only would be excluded in determining the chargeable profits for the purpose of the Surtax Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer question No. 3 in the case of Messrs. Voltas Ltd. and question No. 1 in the case of Messrs. Standard Mills Ltd., in the negative that is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 50 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... and valuables are found and seized, an order can be made under the provisions of section 132(5) and (7) of the Income-tax Act which will be subject to the final assessment. So far as the argument of learned counsel that the first information report should be registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation and investigation should be made by the Central Bureau of Investigation is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a few authorities. There can be no dispute that in case the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, it can be directed to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, but, in this case, for the reasons stated above, no offence, prima facie, appears to have been made out, or at any rate, it was open to the petitioner to file a complaint in the competent court which would have been tried in accordance with law. Consequently, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 49 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the Revenue did not file any application under section 256(2) of the Act to this court for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the second question also nor did it take out a notice of motion for that purpose. Under the circumstances, the only question before us is question No. 1. The result of the refusal of the Tribunal to refer the second question is that its decision setting aside the order of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act has become final. The order of the Income-tax Officer got restored. The Tribunal has also made this position clear in its order by specifically stating We set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and restore the relief originally granted to the assessee. The first question referred to us, therefore, has become academic. In such a situation, we decline to answer the first question which is the only question referred to us, the same being academic. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction, Income From Property, Municipal Taxes, Relief, Vacancy Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... r asset and the income arises not from the original asset but the converted asset. The word indirectly will take care of such a situation. If such a meaning is not given to the word indirectly , then as observed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. C. M. Kothari 1963 49 ITR 107 (SC), the very purpose of using this expression in sub-section (1) of section 64 will be defeated. The word indirectly is meant to cover cases of the present type where the income arises not from the assets transferred directly but indirectly. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the sums of Rs. 56,236 and Rs. 53,834 had been rightly included under section 64(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 47 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... cquiring a depreciable asset. What can be included in the actual cost is also made clear by the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT 1975 98 ITR 167, by observing that the accepted accountancy rule for determining the cost of fixed assets is to include all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and to put them in working condition. It cannot be disputed that the amount which was paid by the assessee for the purpose of acquiring technical know-how and drawings and the travelling expenses incurred by it were also for the purpose of bringing such assets into existence. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the travelling expenditure was required to be taken into consideration for determining the actual cost of the asset and that the assessee was entitled to depreciation thereof. For the reasons stated above, both the questions are answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Rectification, Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... urt in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. 1971 82 ITR 50, no fault could be found in the action of the Tribunal in cancelling the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 13(1)/14(1) of the Surtax Act. In any event, he submitted that, in view of the aforesaid decision of this court, the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer under those sections were clearly bad in law. In this view of the matter, he submitted that no infirmity could be found in the order of the Tribunal under reference. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the Revenue strongly supported the action of the Income-tax Officer and justified the passing of the order under section 13(1)/14(1) of the Surtax Act. On due consideration of the submissions of the parties and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, this reference has to be A answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We, there fore, answer the question accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 45 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Pension, Salary, Standard Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... up by the Legislature while amending section 16. It appears that the Legislature assumed, and rightly so, that no matter whether a person is in actual employment or he is a pensioner, he would be required to incur certain expenditure in order to get his salary or pension, and, proceeding on that assumption, it has provided for a deduction under that head. Thus, the words in respect of expenditure incidental to the employment only suggest the nature of the deduction or the head under which the deduction was to be granted, and they were not employed by the Legislature with a view to make the actual expenditure a condition precedent to the grant of deduction. In our opinion, the said words are descriptive of the nature of deduction to be granted and no further implications can be read therein. For the reasons stated above, the question which is referred to this court is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
....
|
