|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 304 Records
-
1993 (3) TMI 24 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... n November, 1978, which would include Rs. 75,000 towards the principal amount and Rs. 14,000 against the outstanding liability of Rs. 94,847 as interest. It would not be proper to add the amount of Rs. 22,080 by way of accrued interest to the assessee-company. In the mercantile system of accounting, no doubt the interest which has accrued has to be shown as income but in a case where, without alleging any mala fides, collusion or financial soundness of the debtor, a resolution has been passed to waive interest, it cannot be said that any income has accrued to the assessee. The finding given by the Tribunal primarily is a finding of fact and is in accordance with law and, therefore, it is held that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,080 made by the Income-tax Officer being notional interest in the account of Shri Ranglal Devkinandan Bagaria. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Authorised Representative, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ew, the case as developed to justify his request for rehearing involves self-contradictions too. That apart, as noticed already, the appeals have been heard and an order has been passed on merits. The dismissal of the appeals is not for default summarily and consequently the plea for rehearing particularly when the presence of the auditor, who was heard, has been noted, does not arise. For all the reasons stated above, I do not see any merit in the claim of the petitioner that he has been denied an opportunity of hearing and making proper representations in the appeals. Consequently, I see no merit in the writ petitions and they shall stand dismissed. No costs. The dismissal of the writ petitions shall not be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of the claims of the assessee in the appeals them selves and particularly having regard to the fact that the same is being agitated before this court in proper proceedings filed under the Wealth tax Act, 1957, itself.
-
1993 (3) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Legal Expenses, Perquisite ... ... ... ... ..... and which came into existence as a result of the expenditure incurred did not belong to the assessee-company but to the municipality In these circumstances, applying the principles laid down in Empire jute Co. s case 1980 124 ITR 1 (SC), the expenditure is clearly liable to be allowed as deductible from the profits under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Section 37(1) of the 1961 Act . This decision of the Supreme Court apparently has no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the legal expenses incurred in connection with the amalgamation of Messrs. D. Macropolo and Co. Ltd. with the assessee-company have been rightly held by the Tribunal to be capital expenditure. Accordingly, we answer both the questions, viz., questions Nos. 2 and 6 in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... , the payment was made in one instalment within 30 days of the receipt of the relevant material. The payment in respect of the export right was allowed to be made in five instalments spread over a period of five years. That, in our opinion, is not a relevant circumstance to make a distinction between the nature Of the two assets mentioned in the two sub-clauses of clause 4 in view of the clear decision of the Supreme Court in Devidas Vithaldas and Co. v. CIT 1972 84 ITR 277. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 1,15,067 incurred by the assessee on payment of the instalment of the price for export rights under clause 4(b) of the agreement was capital expenditure. Accordingly, we answer the second question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Appeal To AAC, Benefit, Amenity Or Perquisite To Employee, Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Income From Property, New Industrial Undertaking, Power To Admit Additional Ground, Special Deduction, Surtax
-
1993 (3) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
"Immovable Property" In S. 269Ua, Immovable Property ... ... ... ... ..... y given by me in the case of Moi Engineering Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority 1992 198 ITR 270 (Cal), the time-limit cannot be extended by the court and the appropriate authority is bound to issue a certificate of no objection under the provisions of section 269UL(3) of the Act to the petitioner and Lipton forthwith. For the reasons stated, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the appropriate authorities are directed to issue no objection certificate under section 269UL(3) of the Act in respect of the transfer in terms of the agreement between the petitioner and Lipton within two weeks from date. There will be no order as to costs. The prayer for stay of operation of this order has been asked for by the respondent authorities. As I have granted two weeks time to the respondent authority to comply with this order, no stay is granted. All parties concerned to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of the judgment and order on usual undertaking.
-
1993 (3) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he company will have to undertake repairs of the flats in the normal course has not been disputed. It appears that the company had taken on rent (on lease) certain flats which it had let out to its employees. In order to maintain them in good livable condition, the company incurred the expenditure in question for repairs of those flats. There is no evidence that the repairs increased the value of the flats. It is apparent that the company had to maintain the flats in good livable condition and the expenditure for repairs was undertaken to discharge that obligation. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that this expenditure conferred any benefit, amenity or perquisite to the employees within the meaning of section 40(c)(iii). We, therefore, find no distinction which could indicate any departure from that ratio. The answer is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1993 (3) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... the amended provision of section 80 which, with effect from April 1, 1985, completely prohibits determination of loss and its carry forward and set off except where the return is filed either under section 139(1) or under section 139(2). So, under the amended law contained in section 80, even a loss returned belatedly under section 139(4) is not eligible for carry forward. But, the equation accepted in the decision relied upon shall entitle an assessee to have his loss carried forward simply by virtue of not having filed the return under section 139 and having been served with a notice under section 148, while a more diligent or less negligent assessee filing his return of loss under section 139(4) shall stand deprived of the same benefit though in his case the blame is of lesser degree. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question referred to in this case in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1993 (3) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Interest, Interest On Bank Deposits ... ... ... ... ..... cruing or arising in the State of Sikkim. Moreover, in my judgment, the enabling provisions of clause (n) of article 371F have not restricted the power of Parliament to legislate on any matter concerning Sikkim. The President has been given certain powers for administrative convenience. The enabling powers of the President do not take away anything from the legislative competence of Parliament to restrict or enlarge the area of operation of a Central Act. In that view of the matter, this writ petition succeeds and there would be an order as prayed for in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c). The writ petition is finally disposed of as above. Each party will bear and pay its own cost. Stay of operation of this order, as prayed for by Mr. Milan Bhattacharya, advocate, is refused. The Department is directed to supply xerox copies of this order to the advocates appearing for the parties on the usual charges and on an undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy of this order.
-
1993 (3) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Deduction, Other Sources, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... ources though against the decision of the Tribunal that such interest was to be capitalised being part of cost of acquisition of shares has not been appealed against. It is well-settled that an allowance for deduction can be upheld on a ground other than that on which it was allowed by the Tribunal. We, accordingly, hold that the interest in question in the present case cannot be part ofthe cost of acquisition. It is allowable against the income from the investment in question and it can be considered to be set off against the income from other sources. In the circumstances, this issue is answered saying that the said sum on account of interest is allowable as deduction under the head Other sources . Accordingly, we refrain from answering question No. 1. Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 5 is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1993 (3) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Petition Against Order, Search And Seizure, Such Person, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... stions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is covered in favour of the assessee by the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which was brought to our notice while disposing of Income-tax Reference No. 438 of 1979. As per the said circular, the assessee would be entitled to the deduction of the two amounts involved. We are of the view that the questions raised by the Revenue are of academic interest only. In this view of the matter, we decline to answer these two questions. As regards the issue raised in the question referred to us at the instance of the assessee, learned counsel for the assessee was fair enough to state that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Province Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 160 ITR 961, he cannot possibly dispute the decision of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government
-
1993 (3) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... Shah 1993 203 ITR 792 given by this court on November 9, 1992, would have no application in view of the fact that the question referred therein was in the following manner Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was not competent to call in aid the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and levy penalty when the Income-tax Officer while initiating the proceedings had not done so ? In our advisory jurisdiction, we cannot go beyond the question referred to us for the opinion. The wording of the question in the present reference is quite different from that in the case of P. M. Shah 1993 203 ITR 792 (Bom). In this view of the matter, we fail to appreciate how the decision in that case would be of any help to the assessee. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Petition Against Order, Search And Seizure, Such Person, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... ct, it is not necessary for us to pronounce on this aspect. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the petitioner-company is not entitled to maintain this action under article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition without prejudice to its rights to urge all the contentions before the appellate authority under section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act. Parties will suffer their respective costs. After the judgment is pronounced, counsel for the petitioners made an oral application for leave to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under article 134A of the Constitution of India. Since the points raised are covered against the petitioners mostly on the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court which we have referred to, we do not find that any such question of law of public importance as requires to be decided by the Supreme Court arises in these proceedings. Therefore, we decline leave to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
-
1993 (3) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Gift Tax Act, Partner From Firm, Retirement Of Partner ... ... ... ... ..... rm in Income-tax Reference No. 14 of 1990, by judgment dated June 3, 1991 (CGT v. T. M. Sajilatha 1994 210 ITR 976). In Income-tax Reference No. 14 of 1990 (see 1994 210 ITR 976), we held that on the retirement of the assessee from the firm, no transfer of the property amounting to a gift, chargeable to tax, arose. There was no goodwill capable of being gifted. In the light of the Bench decision in CGT v. T.M. Luiz Kannamally 1989 180 ITR 257 (Ker) and our own decision in Income-tax Reference No. 14 of 1990 (see 149941 210 ITR 976), we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no gift exigible to tax was involved in both the cases. We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The references are 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 (3) TMI 9 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Amnesty Scheme, Income Tax Act, Levy Of Penalty, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... ti Bai, has since expired, they have suffered a lot by defending their cases in several courts/Tribunals for more than one decade and rightfully deserve to be treated leniently. In the result, the writ petition filed the petitioner is allowed. It is held that the revised returns filed by the petitioner will be treated to have been filed under the amnesty scheme. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the benefits of the amnesty scheme as already held by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, vide his order dated October 27, 1988. The petitioner is, therefore, immune from imposition of penalty as per Circular No. 451, dated February 17, 1986. The non-petitioner No. 4 is prohibited from taking any further proceedings regarding penalty, etc., in pursuance of the impugned assessment order dated March 25, 1992, against the petitioner. The demand notices, regarding penalty issued against the petitioner, are also quashed. The petition is allowed, as above, with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 8 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Capital Gains, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ent by the assessee, i.e., the consideration received by the assessee in respect of the transaction was not truly declared or disclosed by him but was shown at a lower figure. What is intended to be taxed is the actual gains of an assessee, not what an assessee might have gained or could have gained or received. The inference might be drawn in certain cases but to come to a conclusion that a particular higher amount was in fact received must be based on such material from which such an irresistible conclusion follows. In the light of the above two judgments of the apex court, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act were not applicable in relation to the capital gains earned in relation to Binai House, Ajmer, for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No orders as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... estion under the agreement with the society coupled with the payment of almost the entire cost of construction within a period of two years. The following question, therefore, referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, namely Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 54 of the Act ? is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. We may observe here that the situation of the kind which is before us is likely to arise frequently in a city like Bombay. It is desirable, in order to avoid litigation on this topic, that the Central Board of Direct Taxes issues a circular similar to the circular which it issued in respect of the construction work done by the Delhi Development Authority on October 15, 1986, for the proper guidance of the Income-tax Department and in order to carry out the letter and spirit of section 54. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (3) TMI 6 - SC ORDER
Whether the sales tax amount collected by the assessee is includible in the income of the assessee - Held, yes
-
1993 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 1,38,577 realised at Re. 1 per bilty per customer through the bills and credited to a separate account called 'Dharmada' was not assessable to tax as revenue receipt
....
|
