|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 374 of 374 Records
-
1994 (11) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Manufacture Or Processing Of Goods, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ar thus, in the firm, Ajantha Bleaching and Dyeing Works, is concerned, since it is conceded that the assessee got the bleaching of grey yarn and colouring done in the firm, it is covered by section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. So far as Onni Chettiar and Sons is concerned, unless full facts are available and further investigations are done, it will not be possible to accept the case of the assessee. The Revenue, however, has not addressed itself to this aspect of the matter. It will be necessary for it to examine in some detail after giving an opportunity to the assessee to produce any material/further materials on this aspect of the matter. It is a fit case, in our opinion, thus to have the matter remitted to the Wealth-tax Officer, i.e., in so far as Onni Chettiar and Sons is concerned. We accordingly, direct the Tribunal to do so for examination of the matter in the light of the observations made above. The reference is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (11) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... persons and their shares are indeterminate or unknown. It further held that on the facts of the case, section 21(4) of the Act was not applicable. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner passed under section 25(2) of the Act, was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The Revenue filed an application under section 27(1) of the Act to refer the abovesaid questions for the opinion of this court. The Tribunal felt that they are purely questions of fact and dismissed the application. In our view, the question--whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act is applicable is a question of law. We, therefore, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act is attracted? and state the case. In respect of the other questions the wealth-tax case is dismissed. The wealth-tax case is accordingly ordered.
-
1994 (11) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Central Government, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... e market price then it would be marginal undervaluation to the extent of 0.25 per cent. from 15 per cent., as shown by the petitioner in the sale deed. Hence, this undervaluation price from 15 per cent. would only be 0.25 per cent. which on the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be considered as amounting to undervaluation of the property for the purpose of evading tax. Accordingly, the impugned order dated May 12, 1993, annexure-4, to the writ petition is hereby quashed and we direct the said authority to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made by us and taking into consideration the aforesaid engineers report, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the said authority. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of finally. A certified copy of this order shall be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of the usual charges within three weeks.
-
1994 (11) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Chargeable Profits, Company Surtax, Computation Of Capital Reserves, Income Tax, Law Applicable To Assessment
-
1994 (11) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, High Court, Mercantile System, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... cannot be allowed deduction in the year in which the tax is paid. The observation of the Madras High Court to the effect that the deduction would be available either in the year of accrual of liability or in the year of payment and not in the year of receipt of the disputed demand notice has to be read in the light of section 145 of the Act. So read, it would be clear that in a case where the mercantile system of accounting is followed deduction would be available only in the year of accrual of liability whereas in a case where the assessee follows the cash system of accounting, the deduction would be available in the year of payment. In the premises, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of the sales tax claim. Accordingly, we answer question No. 4 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.
-
1994 (11) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Diversion Of Income, HUF Property, Income By Overriding Title, Share In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... y reason of his 32 per cent. share in the profits of the business carried on in the partnership was income of the assessee alone and there was no diversion of the assessee s income in the said reconstituted partnership under the said deed of partnership dated May 25, 1972, by overriding title by reason of the said declaration dated January 8, 1969, or otherwise. This, maximum, can be a case of application of income by the assessee after he derived it by reason of his partnership share in the profits of the business carried on in the said deed of partnership dated May 25, 1972. In our this view of the matter, we are supported by the decision of this Bench in the case of CIT v. Shri and Smt. Ganesh G. K. Azrenkar 1996 217 ITR 148 (Bom) (Income-tax Reference No. 256 of 1983, decided on November 11, 1994). The question, therefore, is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (11) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Grey Cloth, Initial Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... that context the Supreme Court has delivered the judgment, inter alia, holding that the Amending Act is valid. In the case of Yavatmal Co-operative Ginning and Pressing Factory Ltd. 1993 203 ITR 874, this court was considering the question of investment allowance under section 32A of the Act and a claim for deduction under section 80HH of the Act in respect of machinery installed by the assessee for the purpose of use in the factory of the assessee. In that case, it was held that the process of ginning cotton resulted in the manufacture or production of articles like ginned cotton and cotton seeds since ginning is the process of separating cotton seeds from the fibre. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the Tribunal was wrong in allowing the claim of the assessee. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (11) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Diversion Of Income, Income By Overriding Title, Share In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... e. We further hold that it was a case of application of income by the assessee after he derived it by reason of his share in the profits of the business carried on in partnership. In the facts of the case, it is not necessary for us to decide as to whether the said trust was validly created. It is equally not necessary to decide about the applicability of section 60 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We, therefore, reframe the question referred to us, as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that there was diversion of income by overriding title and that this is not a case of application of income ? Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We answer the reframed question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (11) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... TR 102 held that interest accrued on sticky loans where the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting is includible in the total income of the assessee for assessment purpose. Thus, in view of the decisions cited supra, we hold that the order passed by the Tribunal in remitting back this issue to the Income-tax Officer for fresh disposal on verification of facts appears to be incorrect. The taxability of interest, commitment charges and guarantee commission, came up for consideration before this court in T. C. Nos. 688 and 689 of 1982 for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 in the case of the same assessee wherein this court held that all these items are includible in the total income of the assessee. This was also in accordance with the decision in CIT v. Annapurani Veerappan 1992 193 ITR 426 (Mad). Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us in all the references in the negative and in favour of the Depart ment. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000.
-
1994 (11) TMI 5 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Deduction From Profits And Gains, Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area ... ... ... ... ..... e Court, on the parity of reasoning given in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 155 ITR 120 (SC), held that Section 80AB was enacted to declare the law as it always stood in relation to the deductions to be made in respect of the income specified under the head C of Chapter VI-A. The manner of deduction specified under section 80AB accords with the interpretation that we have placed upon section 80T read independently. If we read section 80HH with section 80AB of the Act then it is very much clear that for the purpose of determination of the relief under section 80HH of the Act, the gross total income of the assessee has to be worked out after deducting unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation and the income eligible for deduction under section 80HH will be the net income as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not the gross income. The reference is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1994 (11) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Supreme Court, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... is also unacceptable. The question of prejudice is immaterial in considering the impact of a statutory provision. The challenge of the petitioners is to the action of the authorities as being beyond the scope of section 194C. If the action is not competent the fact that no prejudice is suffered is of no consequence. For all these reasons the writ application must be allowed. Let writs issue as prayed for in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) in so far as it relates to payment to common carriers merely transporting goods. It is also declared that common carriers of goods by road are not liable to deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the provisions of the section are not applicable to them. There will be no order as to costs. Let a xerox copy of this judgment duly signed by the Assistant Registrar of this court be given to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for the certified copy of the judgment and on payment of usual charges.
-
1994 (11) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... . There is no such (law as to) direct the petitioner to attest the copies. Whether such a direction can be issued or not depends upon the circumstances of each case. Having regard to the undertaking given to this court on November 10, 1994, we direct the Revenue to return the books and jewellery within ten days from today. The other question that survives for consideration having regard to the above order is whether the petitioner should be compensated. Mr. Bajpai contends that the petitioner has been deprived of the property for a considerable number of years and therefore the Revenue should compensate the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to agitate for compensation elsewhere. We cannot do anything in this regard. However, since the petitioner has been compelled to come to the court for seeking the relief and the matter has been adjourned from time to time, we direct the respondent to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs to the petitioner. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (11) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Additional Grounds, Any Remuneration, Business Expenditure, Fluctuation In Rate, Foreign Exchange, Power To Admit Additional Ground, Powers Of Tribunal
-
1994 (11) TMI 1 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Whether Tribunal was right in law and fact in finding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A - Whether Tribunal was right in law and fact in finding that the activity of the assessee would be well within the term 'business' of construction in. section 32A(2)(b)(iii) - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in finding that the assessee is an 'industrial company'
....
|
