|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 305 Records
-
1995 (12) TMI 65 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... o appear at the hearing or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this court is not bound to answer the reference. We refuse to answer the reference and also saddle the assessee with the costs of the Department quantified at Rs. 150. The provisions of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act and section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax are applied when the references are made, but the consequence, in default of appearance of the party at whose instance the references are made, remains the same. We accordingly find that the objection raised by Shri Vyas is proper and deserves to be permitted to prevail. We, therefore, accept the contention raised by Shri D. D. Vyas, appearing for the non-applicant and accordingly refuse to answer the reference. The reference is, thus, not answered. There shall be no orders as to costs. The Tribunal be informed accordingly. This reference application, thus, stands disposed of.
-
1995 (12) TMI 64 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Capital Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Depreciation And Development Rebate, Foreign Exchange, Law Applicable To Assessment, Plant And Machinery
-
1995 (12) TMI 63 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Capital Expenditure, Enduring Nature ... ... ... ... ..... ring a capital asset or an advantage of enduring benefit to the business. It is not the law that in every case, if an enduring advantage is obtained, the expenditure for securing it must be treated as capital expenditure. Though advantage of enduring benefit is not a decisive test to distinguish between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure, on the facts and circumstances of this case, we see no legal infirmity in the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal and the departmental authorities. Expenditure incurred on the carpet has nothing to do with the augmenting, preserving or protecting the turnover or profits of the business and hence that was rightly held capital expenditure. Questions Nos. 4 and 5 are, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Let the record of this Case be sent down to the Appellate Tribunal within fifteen days from today to enable the Appellate Tribunal to pass an order conformable to our order.
-
1995 (12) TMI 62 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... n in response to the notice under section 148 should naturally mean that it was a return in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. (Jashumal Harimal (Firm) v. CST 1995 MPLJ 42 Note). (b) It was not a case of regular assessment and, as such, it was not proper to go under the umbrella of section 143 of the Act to justify the levy of interest. As it was not a case of regular assessment, but an assessment made in pursuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act, we hold that the Tribunal was, not right in law in holding that the interest under section 139(8) of the Act was leviable. Consequently, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference application is accordingly answered, but without any orders as to costs. Counsel fee for either side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. A copy of this order, under the seal and signature of the Registrar of the High Court be forwarded to the Tribunal.
-
1995 (12) TMI 61 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Capital Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Depreciation And Development Rebate, Foreign Exchange, Law Applicable To Assessment, Plant And Machinery
-
1995 (12) TMI 60 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ccepted. The Tribunal also observed that in some of the vouchers, complete details of the parties were mentioned, but in most of the vouchers, addresses were not given. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the assessing authority interrogated the parties whose addresses were given in some of the vouchers. This clinches the issue. Even if the complete details of the parties were not given in all the vouchers, complete details were given at least in some of the vouchers and the Department was free to interrogate at least those parties. On these facts, we do not see that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the assessee was engaged only in job work was perverse. It is patent that the finding that the assessee is engaged in job work is a finding of fact and no question of law arises therefrom. For the reasons, we decline to direct the Tribunal to refer the abovementioned question for the opinion of this court. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
A Partner, Carry Forward And Set Off, Partner In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... raised an argument that business of United Oil Mills may have been discontinued but the firm had not been dissolved and, therefore, the business had not been finally closed and the assessee should be allowed to carry forward the loss suffered from United Oil Mills and claims set off against the profits earned by the assessee as a partner in the other firms. The proviso to section 72 of the Act talks of continuation of business and not of dissolution of the firm. The firm though not dissolved may discontinue its business and once the business is discontinued then under the provisions of section 72(1) the assessee would not be allowed to carry forward the loss to claim set-off against the profits earned in the assessment year in question. Cessation of business would result in the loss of the right to carry forward its loss to the following years. In view of the reasons recorded above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 58 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Deemed Concealment, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... er the Tribunal has erred in accepting the fresh memorandum of appeal presented beyond the period of limitation and deciding the appeal on merits ? (2) Whether the Tribunal has erred in reaching the conclusion about deemed concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 77,507 in the facts and circumstances of the case ? We are thus not satisfied with the correctness of the rejection of the Appellate Tribunal and require the Appellate Tribunal to state the case under section 256(2) of the Act and to refer the aforesaid questions of law to this court. This reference application is accordingly allowed in part in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. Counsel s fee on each side shall be Rs. 750, if certified. The Tribunal is also directed to comply with this order within six months from the receipt of the copy of the order. A copy of this order is directed to be forwarded to the Tribunal under the seal and the signature of the Registrar of this court immediately.
-
1995 (12) TMI 57 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Interest On Refund, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... lar year of assessment was liable to be taxed in the manner as it was done is a point to be considered and answered. After considering the submissions, we find that the question as proposed is a question of law and does arise out of the order of the Tribunal passed in the aforesaid appeal and is required to be stated and referred. In the result we do not feel satisfied with the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal and require the Tribunal in terms of section 256(2) of the Act to state the case and refer the aforesaid question to us for our opinion. This reference application is accordingly allowed in terms indicated above. A copy of the order shall be sent to the Tribunal under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar in terms of section 256(2) of the Act. The Tribunal shall comply with this order within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. Counsel s fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified.
-
1995 (12) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Employed, Capital Expenditure, Depreciation On Building, Expenditure On Scientific Research, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction
-
1995 (12) TMI 55 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... eposits. The explanation of the firm was that the deposits represented the sale proceeds of certain assets belonging to the partners. When no evidence was adduced to substantiate that explanation, the assessing authority added the amount as income of the partnership-firm. These facts are materially different from the fact of the instant case. Most striking feature of the case on hand is that all the deposits came to be made during the accounting year in the books of the assessee-firm before it started its business. Therefore, the onus was on the partners to explain the source in the case on hand and if they failed, the amount could have been added in their hands only and not in the hands of the assessee-firm. On these facts, we answer the above question in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The record of this case be sent down to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal within fifteen days to enable it to pass an order conformably to our order.
-
1995 (12) TMI 54 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Interest Payable By Government, Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... be made on the assumption that interest has to be paid whenever an amount which has been retained by the tax authority in exercise of statutory power becomes refundable as a result of any subsequent proceeding. The Supreme Court approved the view taken by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. 1984 146 ITR 425 in this regard and overruled the decision of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Bardolia Textile Mills v. ITO 1985 151 ITR 389. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to claim interest on the amount refundable pursuant to the consequential order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (respondent No. 2) to give effect to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after the date of the first order of regular assessment passed under section 143 of the Act. In the result, this writ application fails and is dismissed but without costs. S. K. CHATTOPADHYAYA J.--I agree.
-
1995 (12) TMI 53 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Initial Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... re purchaser, will be treated to be the owner or not, but the Tribunal has not expressed any opinion, therefore, we need not dilate on this subject. Suffice it to say that it was a new building constructed by the Housing Board in the previous year and the possession was given by the Housing Board on the March 9, 1979, and that fact stands corroborated from the assessing authority s order because the assessing authorities have themselves granted the benefit of depreciation to the tune of Rs. 6,90,121 to the assessee. Therefore, having accepted the assessee, being the owner of these houses for the previous year, this benefit was granted to the assessee. On the same facts, the assessee is also entitled to the benefit under section 32(1)(iv) of the Act, i.e., initial depreciation on such buildings. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. Hence, the reference is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1995 (12) TMI 52 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Carry Forward And Set Off, Change In Shareholding ... ... ... ... ..... the view taken by the Tribunal is well founded that it was one of the first conditions to deny this benefit clause to record the finding that any change in shareholding was effected with a view to avoiding or reducing any liability to tax. Since there is no positive finding that this change in shareholding was done for the purpose of avoiding or reducing the tax liability, then in that case, there was no option with the Tribunal, but to permit the set off of the losses during the assessment year 1978-79. This was permitted obviously that there was no such reason for avoiding or reducing the tax liability. The Tribunal has allowed the setoff on being satisfied that the change in shareholding was not effected with a view to avoiding or reducing the tax liability. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. Hence, this reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1995 (12) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Fact By Tribunal, Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... e assessee by applying six per cent. net profit. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in his statement, Shri Bhagwan Das stated that he had been carrying on his own business of earning commission on the sale of builty and by purchasing drafts for his traders that he had shown such income as his own, that the parties in whose favour drafts were prepared were traced and the amounts were found credited in their accounts. On these facts, the Tribunal took the view that 28 drafts had been purchased by Shri Bhagwan Das on his own account and that there was no nexus between those drafts and the assessee. Also the Tribunal held that the assessee successfully explained the fall in the gross profits. There is nothing on record to indicate that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is, in any way, perverse. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact and in our view no question of law arises therefrom. The application, therefore, fails and is rejected with costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 50 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, Question Of Law, Tribunal's Order ... ... ... ... ..... application for registration cannot be rejected simply because it is not in order. The Act enjoins that an assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify the defect in the application. If the application was not personally signed by one of the members, the Income-tax Officer ought to have afforded an opportunity to the assessee-firm to rectify the defect. The same view was taken by that court in Ganga Motor Service v. CIT 1977 106 ITR 132 (Patna). In view of the factual matrix and the legal position, we are satisfied that the order of the Tribunal is based on appreciation of facts and does not give rise to a referable question of law. We are satisfied that the refusal by the Tribunal to refer the case is justified and does not call for any interference. We, thus, hold that no case is made out for making direction for reference as the aforesaid question does not arise for consideration. In the result, we dismiss this application summarily without notice to the other side.
-
1995 (12) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Company Surtax, Income From Business ... ... ... ... ..... oes not cease to be the income of the company merely because an additional tax is imposed upon it. Upon the conclusion reached by the Calcutta High Court is that the surtax payable by a company is not deductible in determining its liability to income-tax. Contrary to the view taken by the Calcutta High Court, the Gauhati High Court in Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1989 180 ITR 126 held that surtax is different from income-tax in all attributes and perspectives. Surtax was paid by the assessee in that case under the compulsion of the statute for running the business of tea and, therefore, has to be allowed to be deducted under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. We feel inclined to accept the view taken by the Calcutta High Court and following that we answer the referred question in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The record of the case be sent down to the Appellate Tribunal within fifteen days to pass an order conformably to our order.
-
1995 (12) TMI 48 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... that reasonable opportunity was not given to the assessee. The issuance of the second notice itself manifested the infirmity in the proceedings (Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253) (on page 257) is pertinent. In the result, we are satisfied with the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal and find that refusal of reference is justified. We are thus satisfied that the proposed questions of law as noted above, do not arise out of the orders passed by the Tribunal and as such these reference applications should suffer the fate of dismissal. Accordingly, we find that these reference applications are not worthy of being allowed. Consequently, we reject these applications with no order as to costs. Counsel fee in each of the applications shall be Rs. 750, if certified. The original order shall be retained in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 397 of 1991 and a copy of the order shall be placed in the record on the other connected miscellaneous civil cases as noted above.
-
1995 (12) TMI 47 - DELHI HIGH COURT
High Court, Previous Year, Question Of Law, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... re applicable even though payment was not actually made, which interpretation favours the assessee in the present case. It is brought to our notice that on a special leave petition filed by an assessee against a judgment passed by this court relying on Escorts Ltd. s case 1991 189 ITR 81, the Supreme Court has granted special leave to appeal. On the other hand, on the special leave petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores case 1991 189 ITR 70, the Supreme Court dismissed the said petition On giving our thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the considered view that a question of law does arise out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we issue a direction to the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid question of law along with a statement of case to this court for its opinion. The petition thus stands allowed but without any costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... but can never be equal to the tall claim made by the claimant in the reference not equal to the claim actually awarded by the civil court..... (underlining ours). This authority is of no help to the Revenue. The Supreme Court clearly laid down that the estimated value can be equal to the Collector s award or more but can never be equal to the tall claim made by the claimant in the reference. In the case on hand, the claim of the assessee may be of Rs. 1,44,665 or anything more but what is relevant is how much amount was awarded as compensation under the award by the land acquisition authority. In this case a compensation of Rs. 91,466 only has been awarded to the assessee and, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the inclusion of that amount in the assessee s wealth. The question, therefore, is answered in the negative. The record of the case be sent down to the Appellate Tribunal within fifteen days to enable it to pass an order conformably to our order.
....
|
