|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 252 Records
-
1995 (4) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... spondent No. 2 before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal along with a stay application on March 6, 1995, which was supported with an affidavit on March 14, 1995. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and in the absence of anything regarding the recovery being pressed against the petitioner, we do not find it a fit case to exercise our discretion in the present proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, this is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the appellate authority, namely, the Income-tax Tribunal, for at least disposing of his stay application at an early date. We have no hesitation that in case such an application is made, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case the said Tribunal will pass an appropriate order. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is finally disposed of. Certified copy of this order be issued to counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.
-
1995 (4) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Withholding Of Refund ... ... ... ... ..... d by the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Consolidated Petrotech Industries Ltd. v. Asst. CIT 1993 202 ITR 306. In the said case, the court observed as under .......In the instant case, the order does not show that the Assessing Officer has formed such an opinion and that he has come to the conclusion that the grant of refund was likely to adversely affect the Revenue. In short, the order is a non-speaking order and no reasons are assigned for withholding the amount of refund. . . . Mr. Thakore, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents, also does not dispute that the point is covered by the decision in the case of Consolidated Petrotech Industries Ltd. v. Asst. CIT 1993 202 ITR 306 (Guj). For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the petition requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated February 8, 1995, at annexure A , is hereby quashed and set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 50 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest And Penalty, Partial Waiver, Penalty And Interest, Waiver Of Interest ... ... ... ... ..... refuse to exercise it. In the instant cases, it is the assertion of the petitioners, not refuted by the respondent, that the requisite conditions were present. The respondent himself has granted benefit by reducing interest and penalty partly. He, however, did not apply his mind and no reason/ground whatsoever has been recorded as to why he did not grant the prayer of the petitioners in its entirety. The impugned orders, hence, suffer from non-application of mind. The point is also concluded by a decision of the apex court as well as of this court. The petitions, therefore, require to be allowed by quashing the impugned orders and by directing the respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions are allowed by making the rule absolute, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. It is directed that the respondents will pass fresh orders in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 49 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Undisclosed Stock ... ... ... ... ..... the item-wise rate and quantity of the closing stock for the relevant assessment year ? 5. placing instead the burden of proof wrongly on the Department by observing that no unaccounted sales or purchases had been brought on record ? 6. deleting another addition of Rs. 13,000 without assigning any reasons ? Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the Revenue, very fairly conceded that he will press only question No. 1 for the purpose of the present case, which according to him is a pure question of law and accordingly a question fit to be referred to this court for its opinion. So far as the other five questions are concerned learned counsel for the Revenue conceded that they are questions of fact and accordingly does not press for their reference to this court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and in our considered opinion question No. 1 formulated by the Revenue is also a question of fact and no question of law arises therefrom. The petition stands dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 48 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Income From Property, Income Tax Authorities ... ... ... ... ..... court after hearing the parties as early as on November 22, 1988, in our opinion, this is not a fit case to dismiss the petitions by preventing the petitioners from arguing on the merits. In view of the above facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the authorities have committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in not granting reliefs to the petitioners. We are satisfied that there was reasonable cause on the part of the petitioners in not submitting the returns in time and, hence, no penalty could have been imposed on them under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. Since the impugned action is contrary to law, it requires to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, all the petitions are allowed, the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Commissioner of Income-tax, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 47 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... sence of any such disclosure in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, one is unable to understand as to on what basis the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment because of the increased cost of assets due to fluctuation of exchange. In fact, a reading of the order only leads one to conclude that either the Assessing Officer wants to make an inquiry, whether the formula of valuing cost of assets applied by him in earlier assessment is incorrect or merely wants to change the basis of valuing cost of assets for the purpose of reducing the amount of deduction without specifying any reasons why the basis of valuing of assets earlier is considered by him to be erroneous. In our opinion, necessary conditions for issuing notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Act have not been satisfied. Hence, notice dated March 18, 1994, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 46 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... o state a case and refer the following reframed question to this court (at page 110) Was the Tribunal right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act and in holding that the assessment order of the assessee could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue ? Following the ratio of the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this court we also direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following reframed question to this court for its opinion Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act and in holding that even if it is assumed that the subscribers to the share capital were not genuine then under no circumstances the amount of share capital could be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee ? The petition is accordingly disposed of but without any costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 45 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Total Income, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... hand s case 1982 133 ITR 909 and the decision of this court in Banwarilal Satyanarain s case 1990 PLJR 107, have distinguished them by observing that these two cases were under the Income-tax Act whereas the case before the Division Bench was under the Essential Commodities Act. On the same analogy given by the Division Bench, I may say with great respect that the said Division Bench decision is not applicable in this case inasmuch as the present case is under the Income-tax Act and not under the Essential Commodities Act. After considering the matter from various angles and after giving my thoughtful consideration, I am of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will result in abuse of the process of the court. In the result, this application is allowed and the Complaint Case No. 287 of 1992 including the order taking cognizance dated March 28, 1992, as contained in annexure 2 is hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 44 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... postal cover, I am of the opinion that the petitioner s contentions in this regard cannot be lightly brushed aside and that it requires consideration at the hands of the revisional authority. The petitioner has other contentions as well. But having regard to the fact that the petitioner has availed of the remedy by way of revision and the revision petitions are pending before the revisional authority, I am not examining the legality or correctness of those contentions in these proceedings. Therefore, all that I propose to do is to direct the revisional authority to consider and dispose of exhibits P-8 to P-10 revision petitions expeditiously, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and pending disposal of the revisions as aforesaid, there will be a stay of all further proceedings for recovery of the agricultural income-tax due under exhibit P-6 assessment order and exhibit P-7 notice. The original petition is disposed of as above.
-
1995 (4) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Valuation Officer ... ... ... ... ..... he petitioner. Evidently, the first respondent has issued a direction to make a de novo assessment, since the valuation report submitted by the District Valuation Officer is wide of the mark and the same contains various infirmities and glaring mistakes. Since the infirmities and glaring mistakes in the valuation report have not been rectified, according to me, it is not open to the second respondent to assess the petitioner on the basis of such a valuation report which has been found to be erroneous. The action of the second respondent in making assessment on the basis of the valuation of the District Valuation Officer which has been found to be vitiated by glaring mistakes is accordingly liable to be set aside. In the result, I quash exhibit P-5 and there will be a direction to the second respondent to assess the petitioner only on the basis of a valid valuation report free from the infirmities pointed out by the first respondent. The original petition is allowed as above.
-
1995 (4) TMI 42 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Annual Letting Value, Annual Value, Bona Fide, Capital Gains, Capital Loss, Finding Of Fact, Income Tax Act, Loss On Sale, Question Of Law
-
1995 (4) TMI 41 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Central Excise, Income Tax Act, Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... e Income-tax Act and proceeding further under the provisions of that section, once an assessment is completed. Seizure under section 132 relates to a pre-assessment stage. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds. The authorisation of seizure under section 132(1) in respect of the valuables referred to above and consequent seizure of these articles, vide exhibit-F panchanama along with the inventory and notice under section 132(5). exhibit-B are quashed. The ornaments and the jewellery seized under panchanama exhibit-F as per inventory exhibit-G shall be released forthwith to the petitioner. However, this order will not affect in any manner the proceedings under section 263 or the authority of the respondent authorities to act in accordance with law for the purpose of recovery of any sum outstanding from the assessee from the assets of the assessee including the assets in question. Rule is made absolute in terms indicated above with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 40 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, Provident Fund ... ... ... ... ..... the previous year relevant to the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the contribution made by the assessee to the provident fund of its managing director on the ground that it was not a recognised provident fund. On appeal, this disallowance was confirmed. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal found that the provident fund is established under a statutory scheme and, therefore, no further recognition by the Commissioner was necessary under Schedule IV to the Act for the purpose of allowing deduction under section 40A(5) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the provident fund was actually established under a statute. In the present case, the conclusion of the Tribunal that further recognition under the Income-tax Act was riot required for allowing the contribution made to the said provident fund is obviously correct. In the circumstances, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1995 (4) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy, Income Tax Act, Tax At Source, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... , dubbed the aforesaid contention as non-meritorious and submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge and in any case, they may approach respondent No. 4 and seek disposal of the reply (annexure P-4). Counsel submitted that those suffering deductions, have not found any ground to challenge the deductions. Counsel, therefore, has questioned the bona fides of this petition. In view of the fact that the petitioners have submitted the reply (annexure P-4), I do not find it fit to go into the merits of the matter and entertain this petition. The petitioners can approach respondent No. 4 and obtain proper decision on the reply submitted by them. Needless to say, when the question of jurisdiction is raised and the invalidity of the A, circular is set up, respondent No. 4 is required to decide the matter in conformity with law. As the aforesaid remedy is available to the petitioner, I decline admission and dismiss this petition summarily with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Income Tax Act, Taxing Statutes, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... the desire and dream of the nation, equalisation of transport expenditure, irrespective of the distance travelled by the goods alone is the solution. We see good reasons, thus, to read in the words of the statute its intention to cover the expenditure on transport of goods for export incurred in India for the allowance under section 35B(1)b)(iii) of the Act. So far as the insurance is concerned, it is difficult to think that there shall be deduction if it is covered by an outside agency and not by an Indian agency. All that is required is, it should be insurance of the goods while in transit. In any view, since the expenditure on transport and expenditure on insurance in transit are clubbed together, insurance should receive the same treatment as the carriage of goods receives. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error of law. The questions aforementioned are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 37 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings, Valuation Of Land, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ted in those sales which were no doubt effected in pursuance of the agreement for sale dated June 21, 1975, could not have been substituted ignoring the facts of various provisions of the Act of 1972 and the Act of 1976 which clearly prohibited the transfer of excess land by an assessee. In that sense of the matter, we find that the order under appeal cannot be sustained on its merits also. (emphasis supplied). Thus, when the Tribunal decided the matter on the merits in favour of the petitioner, it was not open to the respondents to invoke the provisions of section 17 and issue notice for reassessment. Therefore, on that ground alone, the notices issued against the petitioner require to be quashed and set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated April 27, 1989, annexure-C (collectively), are quashed and set aside and consequential proceedings, if any, are also ordered to be quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Criminal Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ocument or other thing. This court in Vivekanantham v. Viswanathan 1976 LW (Crl.) 215 has taken the view that the restricted meaning of section 244, Criminal Procedure Code, will defeat the very ends of justice and observed that section 244, Criminal Procedure Code, is wide enough to give power to a court to accept a supplemental or additional list of witnesses given by a complainant and to issue summons to them and record their evidence. All that the section says is that...... the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution . Accepting the contention of the petitioner amounts to narrowing the scope of section 244, Criminal Procedure Code, and would actually lead to grave injustice and hardship to the complainants. I see no ground to set aside the proceedings. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 3127 to 3129 of 1994 are also dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Urban Land Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ome-tax Officer allowed only one-third as relating to the assessment year 1978-79 and disallowed the balance relating to the earlier years. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee s plea for deduction of the entire amount following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M. Ct. Muthiah 1979 118 ITR 104. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Woodlands Hotel 1981 128 ITR 603. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... application of the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act. However, the Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee s contention and added back a sum of Rs. 23,240 under section 40(b) of the Act. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner followed the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of the same assessee for the assessment year 1976-77 and held that in view of the fact that there was only an excess of interest from the partners, the provisions of section 40(b) could not be pressed into service. Accordingly, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the addition of Rs. 23,240. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT 1990 183 ITR 1. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... record to show whether there was any prior contract between the husband and the wife expressly or impliedly to send amounts from Malaysia by way of draft through the post office. If that is so, the post office would be an agent acting on behalf of the donee and the gift would be said to have been completed outside India in Malaysia. But, in the present case, there is no material on record to suggest that there was any desire or intention on the part of the donee expressed to the donor to send the draft from Malaysia through the post office. In the absence of such a finding we are unable to answer the question referred to us in one way or the other. Under such circumstances, we direct the Tribunal to ascertain this aspect and decide the issue arising in this reference on the merits in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. In that view of the matter, we are returning the question unanswered. There will be no order as to costs.
....
|
