|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 305 Records
-
1995 (12) TMI 45 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... not be contended that a tube-well set up by an assessee for the purposes of his business and utilised as such, will not be a plant within the meaning of section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and entitled to development rebate. For the reasons as aforesaid, we are unable to accept the contentions of the Revenue. We answer question No. 2 in the affirmative and also in favour of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and legal position, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on the cost of the tube-well. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The reference application is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Counsel fee on either side shall, however, be Rs. 750, if certified. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Tribunal under the seal and signature of the Registrar of this court.
-
1995 (12) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... Rs. 11,86,926 charged under section 201(1A) for the assessment year 1984-85 ? After hearing the argument of both the parties, we are of the view that the aforesaid question is a question of law and we, therefore, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer the above question for the opinion of this court. The application is, accordingly, allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Best Judgment Assessment, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... of account are maintained by the assessee and, therefore, the assessing authority made a best judgment assessment. It is stated that the assessing authority relied on the inspector s report which was based on the survey conducted in the month of September, 1993. The assessment year herein is 1992-93. The submission of counsel for the assessee is that the report of the inspector relating to the assessment year 1994-95, cannot be read for the assessment year 1992-93 and, therefore, the assessment is based wholly on irrelevant materials. When the past history of the assessee can be pressed into service, we see no reason why on the facts and the circumstances of this case future year which is in close proximity to the relevant year, cannot be seen. This alone is not enough to come to the conclusion that the assessing authority based his conclusion on wholly irrelevant materials. For the reasons, question No. (b) is not a question of law. The application is, therefore, rejected.
-
1995 (12) TMI 42 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A Partner, Carry Forward And Set Off, Partner In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... stances as stated therein and in the exercise of that power an order dated September 9, 1992, was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra, withholding the refund which has been communicated by the impugned order dated September 17, 1992 (annexure-4 to the petition). Considering the provisions of section 241 of the Act and the fact that the Commissioner had already passed an order on September 9, 1992, to withhold the refund till the decision of the appeal, we see no illegality in the impugned order. For the reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine with the observations that the appeal having been filed several years back the Appellate Tribunal may consider the desirability to dispose of the appeal at an early date.
-
1995 (12) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... stified ? In so far as question No. 1 is concerned, the standing counsel has drawn our attention to a decision dated December 13, 1993, of this court rendered in I. T. A. No. 124 of 1993 - CIT v. F. D. Naterville, by which this court had already directed the Appellate Tribunal to refer this question. It will, therefore, be nothing but appropriate to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer this question to this court for its opinion. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, we are not at all satisfied that there is a question of law and hence, we decline to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer this question. The application is, therefore, partly allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Foreign Company, Foreign Technician, Indian Company, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... rt this fact. We, therefore, direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question to this court for its opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to change the status while making the assessment under section 143(1) and in the background whether a change in the status is appealable to the first appellate authority ? The application is accordingly allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 39 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Deemed Dividend, Fact By Tribunal, Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ch is the primary condition, the claim that advance received should be considered as deemed dividend in his hands in the circumstances cannot be raised . The chief ingredient of sub-clause (e) to clause (22) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act is that one should be a shareholder on the date the loan was advanced and according to the Tribunal that ingredient having not been established, the advance could not be taken as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The abovementioned finding of the Tribunal is, no doubt, a finding of fact and has not been specifically challenged and, therefore, the abovementioned question is not referable. The application, therefore, fails and is rejected with costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 38 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... rticle 265 of the Constitution of India ? We are thus not satisfied with the-correctness of the decision of the Tribunal as regards refusal to state the cases and refer one question as formulated by us. Ex consequenti, we allow all these reference applications in part as above and call upon the Tribunal under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to state the cases and refer the aforesaid common question of law arising out of the common order dated June 29, 1987, in each appeal as noted above for our opinion as expeditiously as possible. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side in each case is, however, fixed at Rs. 750 on certification. The copy of the order under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar, in terms of section 27(6) of the Act, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for compliance. This order shall be retained in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 289 of 1988 and its copy each shall be placed in the connected cases.
-
1995 (12) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Foreign Company, Foreign Technician, Indian Company, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... ort, under obligation to pay all taxes leviable on Skoda or its technicians. It is for this reason that BHEL put itself in the position of an agent of the petitioners and paid the tax and filed the returns. The Department did not object. Therefore, it cannot now say that BHEL cannot maintain these petitions on behalf of the foreign technicians. In effect BHEL is the real assessee and the petitioner. For the above reasons, the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax were not right in holding that the DTAA between India and Czechoslovakia was not applicable and the income of the petitioners was not exempt from Indian tax. These writ petitions, therefore, deserve to be allowed. The writ petitions are allowed and the assessments made on the petitioners under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the years referred to above are hereby quashed. The tax paid on behalf of the petitioners by BHEL shall be refunded to BHEL forthwith. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 36 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ha was specifically asked whether this second appeal which appears to have been filed by Smt. Santosh Rani as a legal representative of the deceased Narayandas Jwalaprasad, is maintainable when the first appeal which was filed by the Revenue, had been rejected by the detailed speaking order. Learned counsel frankly submitted that this second appeal is not envisaged in law and not maintainable. Hence, we are constrained to observe that some mischief is sought to be played by misleading this court by showing that the appeal was filed by the Revenue properly against the legal representative of the late Narayandas Jwalaprasad. Such kind of attempt on the part of the Revenue cannot be countenanced and it is to be condemned. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is justified that no appeal lies against a dead person and that the appeal itself was incompetent and a nullity. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly decided the matter. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1995 (12) TMI 35 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... uent assumption of jurisdiction by the competent authority is complete by the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette under section 269D(1). Any procedural defect in compliance with sub-section (2) would not affect the jurisdiction of the competent authority and would not vitiate the whole of the proceedings under the section. We respectfully agree with and follow the view taken by the full Bench of this court in Amrit Sports Industries case 1983 144 ITR 113, and the subsequent Division Bench judgment of this court in Mela Singh s case 1986 161 ITR 78. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and that of the competent authority restored. The Tribunal did not go into the merits of the dispute as it had set aside the order of the competent authority on the question of jurisdiction alone. We, therefore, accept the appeal and remit the case back to the Tribunal for decision on the merits of the dispute.
-
1995 (12) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Agreement To Sell Property ... ... ... ... ..... 96(SC), relied upon by the learned judge is, relevant. It reads as follows Section 277 of the Income-tax Act, in general, seeks to penalise one who makes a false statement in order to avoid his tax liability. In the present case, the Revenue has not come forward with the case that the money represents the income of the third appellant liable to be taxed but on the other hand, it is the case of the Income-tax Officer that it is not the third appellant s money at all. Moreover, a cursory reading of the penal clause proposes to impose punishment depending upon the quantum of tax sought to be evaded. Here no question of evading the tax will arise. Therefore, the question of punishing the accused arises, provided there is an evasion of tax. Since the appellants have admitted that the accused are not liable for payment of tax, the learned judge is right in acquitting the accused. I do not see any infirmity in the judgment of the learned judge and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 33 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... of unexplained investment in the cinema theatre was rejected not on the ground that the statement was taken from the assessee on threat or coercion but on the ground that the cinema theatre was owned only by three of the four partners of the firm and that a presumption that unexplained investment, if any, was made by the assessee-firm could not be made. We are, therefore, of the view that there was sufficient material for the Tribunal to find that addition to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 each for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 towards excess stock and that the assessee had failed to discharge his burden to prove that the statement was obtained by intimidation and coercion. For the reasons stated above, we answer the questions referred in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 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, as required by law.
-
1995 (12) TMI 32 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, High Court, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... e Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act within the period prescribed for that purpose. Counsel, therefore, submitted that this application is inutile and that the applicant is not without remedy. Earlier the question of registration is decided against the applicant. The decision is reported in Ganga Cut Piece Centre v. CIT 1982 137 ITR 274. In CWT v. Smt. Usha Devi 1990 183 ITR 75 (MP), it is held that the pendency of the same issues before the Supreme Court is no ground for directing the reference. The point of controversy stands decided by this court against the assessee and the Tribunal having followed the decision of this court, we hold that no referable questions arise in this case. That being so, we reject the application leaving the applicant free to resort to appropriate remedy when the occasion so arises, as noted above, if permissible under the law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Counsel fee on either side shall, however, be Rs. 750, if certified.
-
1995 (12) TMI 31 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority, Doctrine Of Merger ... ... ... ... ..... ter or because the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, though having jurisdiction to examine that subject-matter, did not do so. If the Commissioner has set aside the entire order of assessment, then it could not be held that he has exercised the power conferred upon him because he has no power under section 263 of the Act to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner is not justified in setting aside the entire order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer in exercise of his revisional powers under section 263 of the Act when the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer was the subject-matter of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In view of the decision of the Special Bench of honourable five judges of this court, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be held to be a valid view therefore, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1995 (12) TMI 30 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... on 269D(2) is to secure the presence of the transferee to enable him to file his objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition. The purpose of the notice was fully served when the transferee appeared on his own and filed his objections. He had thus proper notice of the proceedings that were initiated by the competent authority and cannot make a grievance of not having been formally served with a notice. In our opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order impugned before it on the ground that the transferee had not been properly served. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard cannot, therefore, be sustained. Since the Tribunal had not decided the merits of the other contentions raised before it by the transferee, the case is remanded to it for decision on other grounds that remained undecided. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the Tribunal set aside and the case remanded as aforesaid. There is no order as to costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Assessment, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... has held that section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act is a machinery. As such section 7(4) would automatically go to the field of procedural rather than substantive law. If law is procedural, then it can be applied retrospectively to pending matters. It is thus clear that section 7(4) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 1976, being in the nature of machinery is procedural in nature and is applicable to all the pending assessments including those prior to the assessment year 1976-77. The Tribunal was thus justified in adopting that course. No error is demonstrated. The question stands concluded by decided cases, as referred to above and thus is no longer a referable question of law to this court. We thus hold that the Tribunal wag right in refusing to refer the question and further pursuit by the applicant under section 27(5) is inutile. Accordingly, we reject the reference application with no order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side shall, however, be Rs. 500, if certified.
-
1995 (12) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Mercantile System, Private Trust, Revenue Expenditure
-
1995 (12) TMI 27 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ation of penalty were essentially findings of fact, proposed question No. 2, which arises out of such findings, is also not fit for reference. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and gone through the judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as the reference application. After perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are purely findings of fact and no referable question of law arises out of the judgment/order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in refusing to refer the questions mentioned in the application. We see no merit in this application under section 256(2) of the Act and the same deserves to be dismissed. In the result, we do not find any merit in the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Expenditure Incurred, Raw Material, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... d plant installed in the hotel, irrespective of the period of its actual user during the previous year. (iv) The extra depreciation allowance in the case of an approved hotel run by an Indian company is allowable in addition to normal depreciation allowance. From the aforesaid circular, it is manifest that the Board clarified the scope of item III, sub-item (iii), of Part I of Appendix I fully. From the Board s circular and the statutory position, it is clear that extra-shift depreciation allowance is not allowable to approved hotels in addition to extra depreciation allowance and that approved hotels are entitled only to extra depreciation allowance under item III, sub-item (iii) of Part I of Appendix I. Following the decision of the Calcutta High Court, the above question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The record of the case be sent down to the Appellate Tribunal to enable it to pass an order conformably to this order.
....
|
