|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 305 Records
-
1995 (12) TMI 25 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Expenditure Incurred, Raw Material, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... mounts to acquisition of advantage/benefit of enduring na ture is concerned as we have already discussed, it depends upon the object with which such advantage or benefit has been acquired. If the advantage or benefit had been acquired to facilitate running of the existing business, it should be treated as expenditure on revenue account. If the advantage or benefit acquired for establishing a fresh venture, it may be treated as part of expenditure on capital account. As, in the present case, the finding of the Tribunal reveals that the advantage was acquired for the purpose of manufacturing raw material for production of Tinopal which was the existing business of the assessee, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred was rightfully held to be on revenue account. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in all the four cases in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 24 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Purchase Price
-
1995 (12) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A Firm, Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... hat debt which is incurred in relation to any property which is chargeable to tax, can be allowed to be deducted. If a property, in respect of which the debt is incurred, is not chargeable to wealth-tax, then that will not be deducted from the wealth-tax under section 2(m). For the reasons, the case is sent back to the Appellate Tribunal with the direction that it will record a clear finding as to whether the amount withdrawn from the firm giving rise to the debit balance was utilised in relation to any property, which is chargeable to wealth-tax. If it is so, then the debit balance being a debt owed within the meaning of section 2(m) will be allowed to be deducted, but if the finding is that the debt was incurred in relation to any property not chargeable to wealth-tax, then the deduction will not be allowed in view of section 2(m)(ii). The record of this reference be sent down to the Tribunal within fifteen days to pass a fresh order in the light of our above observations.
-
1995 (12) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital For Purposes, Computation Of Capital, Debenture Redemption Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... le for us to say that it has been set apart to provide for a known liability. It was also further pointed out that when an amount was set apart to provide for a known liability businessmen would ordinarily plough it back to use for purposes of business. If the right to plough back is there, then it ceases to be a provision to meet a known liability. So in the light of the fact of right of user contained in clause 20, the debenture redemption reserve is a reserve and not a provision, according to the Tribunal. Thus, considering the peculiar facts arising in this case, in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the debenture redemption reserve fund in the present case is only a reserve and not a provision and that it should be included in the capital base. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... or fails in taking steps for preparation of 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 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and section 44(2) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, are intended to serve the same purpose. The consequence remains the same. According to the aforesaid authority, the court is not under a legal obligation to answer the questions even when referred by the Tribunal at the behest of the assessee when the assessee elects to remain absent and does not enable the hearing. In the instant case, the assessee itself, after rejection of the application by the Tribunal, filed the case but has not appeared. The application is opposed by NA. We, therefore, do not examine the merits and reject the application for want of prosecution with no orders as to costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Any Remuneration, Business Expenditure, Development Allowance, High Court, Per Annum, Territorial Jurisdiction, Weighted Deduction
-
1995 (12) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Enduring Benefit, Foreign Company, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ce Department. In order to meet the exigencies of the business, the assessee purchased the drawings. On facts both the first appellate authority and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purchase of the drawings would not be for the purpose of obtaining any enduring benefit. All the decisions on this aspect unanimously say that the decision whether a particular type of expenditure is revenue in nature depends upon the facts arising in that particular case. Thus applying the ratio of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1989 177 ITR 377 to the facts arising in this case we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of purchasing the drawings is revenue in nature. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Discretionary Trust, Interest On Securities, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ection 80L of the Act as well. The charge of tax comes into play after the income has been determined in the manner stated above. In the present case, the trustee is an individual. His status, therefore, has to be adopted as that of an individual and from his individual income the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80L of the Act. On the income so computed the tax has to be charged in view of the provisions contained in section 164(1) treating such income as if it was the income of an association of persons or at the rate of 65 per cent., whichever was more beneficial to the Revenue. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80L of the Act. In view of the foregoing discussions, we consider that the Tribunal was correct in granting relief under section 80L of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the assessment years under consideration in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 17 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Business Income, Excise Duty ... ... ... ... ..... that if the assessment order is finalised on the basis of a situation whereby the amount so depleted or deducted is accepted, it would still come within the ambit and scope of the section. In our considered view, this is the only correct way that section 41(1) can be interpreted if the legislative intent is required to be enforced. We have also taken note of the fact that such a view has by and large found favour by various courts including the two earlier Division Bench decisions of this court. Having regard to the aforesaid position in law the reference that has been made to us by the authorities is answered in the affirmative on both counts. The reference is accordingly disposed of. Before parting with this judgment we desire to place on record our deep appreciation particularly to the learned senior counsel, Sri Sarangan, for the immense research and excellent presentation as also to the Department s learned advocate, Mr. Seshachala, who has admirably assisted the court.
-
1995 (12) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Electrical Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... s thereon, section 86(v) will not apply and the member of such association of persons would not be entitled to any exemption in respect of the amount receivable by him as a member thereof. We are, however, of the firm opinion that the amount referred to in section 86(v), in any event, would be the amount receivable by the member of the association of persons out of its income without deduction of the income-tax paid by the association of persons thereon. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the share of income from the association of persons includible in the assessee s hands as a member thereof has to be determined after deducting from the association of persons income the amount of income-tax already paid thereon. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Attributable To, Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Development Allowance, Expenditure Incurred, Foreign Enterprise, Scientific Research, Special Deduction, Travel Expenditure, Weighted Deduction, Written Down Value
-
1995 (12) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Any Remuneration, Business Expenditure, Development Allowance, High Court, Per Annum, Territorial Jurisdiction, Weighted Deduction
-
1995 (12) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Educational Institutions, Words And Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... 2) of the Act. In the Gujarat case, the Gujarat State Co-operative Union was held to be an educational institution for the purposes of section 10(22) of the Act. In our opinion, the law in this regard is well-settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT 1975 101 ITR 234, where it was held that the word education connotes the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling and has not been used in the wide and extensive sense according to which every acquisition of further knowledge constitutes education. The above decisions of the Orissa and the Gujarat High Court, in our opinion, go counter to the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Loka Shikshana Trust s case 1975 101 ITR 234. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Dissolution Of Firm, Firm Assessment, Protective Assessment, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... the hands of the members of association of persons the same income can be validly taxed again in the hands of the firm constituted by the same members as partners ? The question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Questions referred at the instance of the Revenue (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts, in holding that the award amount of Rs. 1,48,24,876 is not taxable in the hands of the assessee-firm under the provisions of section 176(3A) read with section 189(1) of the Act ? We answer the aforesaid question in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. (ii) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of sections 28(iv), 60 and 63 of the Act were not applicable in the instance case ? The question is answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Book Asset, Capital For Purposes, Computation Of Capital, General Reserve, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... by this court in CIT v. Boots Co. (I.) Ltd. 1995 214 ITR 175, the doubt as to the true meaning should be real, and not conjectural or fanciful. It is not for the courts to invent fancied ambiguities and stretch or pervert the language of the enactment in favour of the taxpayer. In the instant case, it is clear from the foregoing discussion that the principle of beneficial interpretation has no application. The contention of learned counsel based on principle of beneficial interpretation is also therefore rejected. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, it is fairly stated by learned counsel for the parties that in view of the answer to question No. 1 in favour of the Revenue, it is not necessary to answer the same. Question No. 3, is, therefore, returned unanswered. To sum up, questions Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue and question No. 3 is returned unanswered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rectification Of Mistakes, Rectification Reducing Refund, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... whether any notice under section 154(3) read with section 245 was ever served to the petitioner or not. Likewise, section 245 also states that set-off could not be made unless the party is given any notice. From the return filed, it appears that no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the so-called order passed on June 9, 1992, appears to be without jurisdiction as no notice was given to the petitioner-assessee nor Shri Jain could point out that any notice was given before proceedings were taken up. This is in breach of principles of natural justice as no notice as required under section 154(3) as well as under section 245 of the Act were served on the petitioner. Hence, the respondents are directed to refund the amount due forthwith. If they want to make recourse of set-off, it is open to them to proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest for the illegally withheld amount, according to law. The petition is allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy, Notice Of Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... not applied his mind for reopening of the assessment. But I would not like to express any opinion at this stage, because I am of the opinion that looking to the facts, it will not be proper to exercise the jurisdiction of this court to directly interfere in such matters. It would be proper that the petitioners file a proper reply and take all the objections which the petitioners have taken here in this court, before the assessing authority who shall decide whether such reopening of assessment is sustainable or not. But, at this stage, I do not want to express any opinion. Suffice it to say that there is a proper remedy provided under the Act and the petitioners can successfully get their grievances redressed. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere and uphold the objection that this petition should not be entertained under the extraordinary jurisdiction of article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Acquisition Proceedings, Assessment Proceedings, High Court, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government
-
1995 (12) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reference To High Court, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... nt is not without remedy. Earlier the question of registration is decided against the applicant. The decision is in Ganga Cut Piece Centre v. CIT 1982 137 ITR 274. No change in the fact situation is indicated. 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. An identical case (Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 125 of 1988 (Ganga Cut Piece Centre v. CIT 1996 219 ITR 201) has already been rejected. 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 6 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Investment Allowance, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Law Applicable To Assessment, Notice Of Reassessment, Reassessment Proceedings, Rectification Of Mistakes, Rectification Proceedings, Supreme Court
....
|
