Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 220 Records
-
1995 (10) TMI 20
Delay In Filing Return, Failure To Pay Advance Tax, Penalty And Interest, Waiver Of Interest ... ... ... ... ..... that The fact that the penalty under section 271(1)(a) has been cancelled is by itself not a ground for waiving or reducing the interest. It was pointed out by this court in Kerala Tile and Clay Works v. CIT 1976 104 ITR 597 that the two impositions operate in different fields though they are complementary to each other. While penalty is punitive, interest is compensatory. Penalty is imposed in the absence of a reasonable cause while a request for reduction or waiver of interest requires the assessee to make out sufficient cause. The nature of the causes to be made out as well as the nature of the impacts are qualitatively different. Therefore, on the language and on the objects of the two provisions, it cannot be held that cancellation of the penalty ipso facto results in total waiver of interest. For the said reason, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders calling for any interference by this court. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed but without costs.
-
1995 (10) TMI 19
High Court, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... ny and the second respondent has to accept the same and act upon it for purposes of registration of the sale deed dated July 31, 1995, executed by the vendors in favour of Manuweb International Limited (now amalgamated into and known as Manugraph Industries Ltd. ) relating to the property bearing No. 18-A (Corporation No. 18/A/21/1), First Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the second respondent to register the said sale deed, on the basis of the certificate dated May 18, 1995, already issued by the first respondent in favour of Manuweb International Ltd., if it is other wise valid in all other respects. In the view I have taken it is unnecessary to consider whether in the circumstances of the case the first respondent has the power under section 269UJ of the Income-tax Act to amend the said certificate by substituting the name of Manugraph Industries Ltd., in the place of Manuweb International Limited. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 18
Excise Duty, Question Of Law, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... d adjudicated by the jurisdictional court. The ends of justice would have been met if the question of law, as projected in the petition, had been referred to this court for adjudication. This was more necessitated in view of the rival contentions of the parties regarding the applicability of the two judgments of the Supreme Court on the point raised before the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the application is allowed with a direction to the Tribunal to refer to this court the question of law raised by the Revenue, for adjudication and opinion of this court.
-
1995 (10) TMI 17
Appeal To AAC, Failure To File Return, Penalty Provisions ... ... ... ... ..... and calculated the minimum penalty imposable under the relevant provision, then gave effect to the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax for raising a demand by reducing the minimum imposable penalty by 50 per cent, Therefore, the order of the Wealth-tax Officer in the present case does not lose its independent character of levying penalty under section 18(1)(a) and is not an order merely of executive nature in giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the questions referred to us are answered in the affirmative, that is to say, that the Appellate Commissioner could entertain the appeal from the order of the Wealth-tax Officer imposing penalty notwithstanding the fact that the Wealth-tax Officer has quantified the amount of penalty payable to be less than the minimum penalty imposable as per the order of the Commissioner under sub-section (2A) of section 18 of Act of 1957. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (10) TMI 16
Rejection Of Accounts ... ... ... ... ..... e-tax Officer has no power or jurisdiction to rely upon the rejected account books for the purpose of making additions towards unexplained cash credit. What all the Tribunal pointed out was that when the Income-tax Officer rejected the account books as defective while determining the business income of the assessee, on the basis of the same account books it is not reasonable on his part to work out the peak credit. Nothing was said against the law on this aspect. The conclusion was arrived at by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal on the basis of the facts and circumstances arising in this case. Since this finding was arrived at on the basis of the facts, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in directing the Income-tax Officer to accept the amount of Rs. 3,54,110 towards unexplained cash credit. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (10) TMI 15
Capital Loss ... ... ... ... ..... was held an income receipt because the assessee received the said amount, in the course of its doing distributing agency business. It is only under these circumstances, the Supreme Court considered that the sum of Rs. 26,000 received during the course of the business of distribution which is the business of the assessee. But, according to the facts arising in the present case, the loss was not incurred in the distribution business, but the loss was incurred in acquiring the distribution right which is a capital asset. Therefore, the loss should be a capital loss and not revenue loss. Thus considering the facts arising in this case and in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the loss incurred by the assessee in acquiring the distribution rights is a revenue loss. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us, in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1995 (10) TMI 14
Jurisdiction To Levy Penalty, Law Applicable To Assessment, Levy Of Penalty, Penalty Proceedings
-
1995 (10) TMI 13
Profit In Lieu, Profits In Lieu ... ... ... ... ..... salary is not income chargeable under the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that in case this court comes to the conclusion that the encashment of leave salary is profit in lieu of salary, then the assessee would be permitted to ask for relief under section 89(1) of the Act. According to learned counsel, before the authorities below, the assessee claimed such a relief. It remains to be seen that in the present case, we hold that encashment of leave salary is profit in lieu of salary, and in case the assessee is entitled to ask for relief under section 89(1) of the Act, it is open to the assessee to do so, and if such a request is made, the Tribunal is directed to consider the same on the merits, in accordance with law, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand).
-
1995 (10) TMI 12
Account Books ... ... ... ... ..... The issue involved in all these three questions is common. The point for consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of the amount representing pension payment to the retired employees of the company in the computation of income. In the case of the same assessee, this court in the decision reported in CIT v. T. Stanes and Co. Ltd. 1976 105 ITR 251 held that such deduction is not possible. This decision of this court was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in T. Stanes and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1991 188 ITR 237. In view of the abovesaid decision rendered in the case of the same assessee, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is not entitled to a deduction towards the amount representing payment of pension to the retired employees of the company in the computation of income for the assessment years in question. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1995 (10) TMI 11
Account Books ... ... ... ... ..... the petitioner is deliberately false and. he has concealed the income and evaded the tax to the tune of Rs. 4,74,825 for the assessment year 1982-83. Whether he is intentionally fabricating the books of account or making false entries in the books of account or suppressing the source of income in order to evade tax are matters of evidence and it is not a case for quashing the proceedings. Having regard to the quantum of punishment, the proceedings are triable with warrant procedure and the petitioner has an opportunity to urge all his contentions. I see no ground to quash the proceeding. In this fact situation, this is not a case to quash the proceedings and all contentions are left open. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
-
1995 (10) TMI 10
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Income From Business ... ... ... ... ..... 5,45,687. If that is so, where did the surplus income of Rs. 7,98,081 come from ? Whether it is an accumulated surplus of the previous years or whether it includes the surplus of Rs. 3,91,020. If it is accumulated surplus of the previous years, it is not known whether the assessee has followed the procedure as contemplated under section 11(2) of the Act. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to verify as to whether the surplus of Rs. 7,98,081 included the surplus of Rs. 3,91,020 and where this Rs. 7,98,081 came from, and whether the said amount has been applied for charitable purposes in accordance with the provisions contained in section 11(1) of the Act. Without getting clarifications on these aspects, it is not possible to answer the question referred to us. After ascertaining these facts, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of this matter in accordance with the provisions contained in section 11 of the Act. We, accordingly, return the questions referred to us unanswered.
-
1995 (10) TMI 9
Authorised Capital, Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Capital Gains, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Computation Of Capital, Conveyance Allowance, Cost Of Acquisition Of Capital Asset, Fair Market Value, Fluctuation In Rate, Foreign Exchange, House Rent Allowance, Insurance Premia, Question Of Fact, Taxing Statutes, Value As On 1-1-1954
-
1995 (10) TMI 8
Assessment Year, Business Premises, Jewellery And Ornaments, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... account by the Assessing Officers have been duly considered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in its appellate order passed in the case. The plea now sought to be urged in support of this application for reference that the jewellery and ornaments seized were assets belonging to the ancestral business of the family was never pressed before the tax authorities and the plea was also not substantiated by any evidence. So far as the legal contention advanced that there should be a finding that the investments had been made in the previous financial year and not recorded in the books of account as required by section 69 of the Act is concerned, the orders of the tax authorities read as a whole and as discussed above, go to show that such a finding is contained in the orders. We find no merit in this application as no question or questions of law arise from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The application is, therefore, rejected, but without any order as to costs.
-
1995 (10) TMI 7
Question Of Law, Valuation Officer ... ... ... ... ..... ot followed the procedure prescribed under section 23(3A) of the Wealth-tax Act which enjoins on the appellate authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the Valuation Officer. That apart, it cannot be stated as a universal proposition of law that the question of valuation is always a question of fact. An arbitrary valuation by taking into account irrelevant factors or by eschewing from consideration relevant factors or a valuation based on wild guess work rather than proper data could be found fault with as a legal error and not merely as a factual error. Whether or not the valuation made by Departmental Valuer was rejected on relevant grounds and whether the estimation made by the appellate Commissioner is based on accepted principles is a question of law to be considered. In this view of the matter, we consider it just and appropriate to direct questions Nos. 1 and 4 to be referred for the opinion of the High Court. The wealth-tax case is accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
1995 (10) TMI 6
Business Expenditure, Medical Expenses, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... one person exceeds Rs. 72,000 per year. This section, therefore, prescribes the ceiling of Rs. 72,000 for the permissible deduction of the expenditure incurred by the company which results directly or indirectly in the provision of any remuneration, benefit or amenity to a director. In the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited 1994 210 ITR 358, this court held that the phrase any remuneration, benefit or amenity is of wide amplitude and it covers benefit or amenity in cash or in kind. In view of the clear language of the aforesaid sub-clause (i) the medical reimbursement would be covered by section 40(c). In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in excluding the sum of Rs. 9,918 paid to the managing director for reimbursement of the medical expenses, while computing the disallowance under section 40(c) of the Act. Accordingly, our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (10) TMI 5
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... nt. Rule issued is partly made absolute by issuing a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the order of pre-emptive purchase so far as it directed deduction on account of the burden of stamp duty to be borne by the vendor. We direct the respondent to pay to each of the petitioners the sum so illegally deducted with 12 per cent. interest from the date when the other amount was paid by the respondents to the date of additional payment to each of the petitioners in pursuance of this order. We may further state that if there is any calculation mistake pointed out by the petitioners regarding any deductions which have been made while arriving at an amount of apparent consideration for making payment to them, such application shall be decided and calculation mistakes, if any, found to be there shall be corrected by the respondents, provided such an application is made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (10) TMI 4
Assessment Order - Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in vacating the orders passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1967-68 on the ground that on his own recorded findings, the Commissioner wrongly assumed jurisdiction
-
1995 (10) TMI 3
Minor son purchased property form cash gift received from father-assessee - that property sold later when son was minor - whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gain of Rs. 58,000 was assessable in the hands of the assessee in terms of section 64(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Held, yes
-
1995 (10) TMI 2
Charitable Trust - whether exemption under s. 11 can be denied on the ground that the assessee should have invested the entire surplus amount in one or other of the securities mentioned in s. 11(2)(a) - If the entire income received by a trust is spent for charitable purposes, in India, then it will not be taxable but if there is a hearing i.e. an accumulation of 25 per cent. or ₹ 10,000 whichever is higher, it will not be included in the taxable income
-
1995 (10) TMI 1
Unabsorbed Depreciation - Carry Forward and Set Off - High Court has refused to answer the reference, made at the instance of the Revenue, on the ground that the Revenue has failed to file the paper book in spite of a period of ten years having elapsed since the reference - In view of our judgment in Estate and Finance Ltd.'s case, we allow this appeal also and remit the same to the High Court with a request to dispose of it according to law
....
|