Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 252 Records
-
1995 (4) TMI 32 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Urban Land Tax
... ... ... ... ..... 95 213 ITR 340 in paragraph 7 thereof, has held that the view taken by the apex court in its earlier judgment in Mithilesh Kumari s case 1989 177 ITR 97 does not lay down the correct law. In view of the larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court, the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act are prospective in nature and cannot be pressed in service in connection with suits filed prior to the coming into operation of the said section. In view of this latter decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B. G. Gangadharappa 1992 196 ITR 277 (Kar), has to be held as impliedly overruled to that extent. In the present case, admittedly, the suit in question was filed in 1974, whereas the Act has come into force on May 19, 1988, and, therefore, the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act will have no application to the facts of the present case. There being no other substantial question of law arising in this appeal, the same has to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income Or Income From Property, Income From Letting Out, Urban Land Tax ... ... ... ... ..... er the head Business thereby allowing the expenses incurred for letting out the properties, as business expenditure ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not considering the applicability of the provisions of section 43B for disallowing the disputed urban land tax if the income is to be assessed under business and the non-deductibility of the cost of supplying drinking water from the income from property ? In so far as question No. 1 is concerned, a similar question was directed to be referred by this court in Tax Case Petition No. 33 of 1990 by order dated April 23, 1990. So far as the second question is concerned, the answer to be given on the first question will have a bearing in deciding the second question. Accordingly, we direct the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid two questions of law for the opinion of this court along with the statement of facts of the case. Accordingly, this tax case petition is ordered.
-
1995 (4) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Development Rebate At Higher Rate, New Industrial Undertaking, Profits And Gains, Special Deduction
-
1995 (4) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... rust income could not be taxed in her hands. In support of this contention reliance was placed upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Yogindraprasad N. Mafatlal v. CIT 1977 109 ITR 602. However, the Income-tax Officer held that the income of Rs. 60,921 arising to the trust should be included in the assessee s total income. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the contention put forward by the assessee and deleted the addition. On further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is in accordance with the Supreme Court s decision in the case of CIT v. M. R. Doshi 1995 211 ITR 1. In this decision, the Supreme Court approved the decision of the Bombay High Court in Yogindraprasad N. Mafatlal s case 1977 109 ITR 602. 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 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Expenditure Incurred, Question Of Law, Scientific Research Expenditure, Setting Up
-
1995 (4) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income From Other Sources, Law Applicable To Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... inion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income must be treated as having been received in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63. In the circumstances that we have noticed that the jackpot income accrued to and was received by the assessee on February 28, 1972, i.e., before the first of April, 1973, from which date alone income from horse race, etc., was made taxable and for all purposes the assessee had adopted a financial year advanced by three months of a regular financial year for his accounts, the jackpot accidentally appeared to fall in the previous year of the assessment year 1973-74. In fact and for all purposes the jackpot income fell in the accounting year 1971-72 of the assessee of which the assessment year was 1972-73 and not 1973-74 as claimed by the Revenue. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no mistake in excluding the income from race winnings from the tax. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... rned counsel for the Revenue has, however, pointed out that the assessee who is a partner in a coffee estate has valued only the interest in the partnership and it is not known whether for some other assets, the assessee claimed exemption without adverting to the limit as prescribed under section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act and a proper realisation of tax from the assessee is not possible. We have gone through the records which are made available to us We have, however, not found any foundational fact for the examination whether in view of section 5(1)(iva) the assessee has been rightly allowed the exemption in respect of the assessee s share in the agricultural land of the firm to the extent of his share. Since there are no foundational facts, it is not possible to enter into this controversy. Answer to the questions referred to us, however, is available in the judgment of this court in Venkatavaradha Reddiar s case 1995 214 ITR 76. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1995 (4) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Service Of Notice ... ... ... ... ..... h a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, to refer the following question of law to this court for its opinion in terms of the provisions of section 256 of the Income-tax Act Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar, to the effect that the service of notice by affixture cannot be said to be proper service especially when the assessee had refused to accept the service of the said notice ?
-
1995 (4) TMI 24 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Business Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Deduction In Respect, Special Deduction, Technical Services
-
1995 (4) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... tted that the disallowance made by the Tribunal was quite correct. It remains to be seen that, the assessee owns an extent of 145 acres of plantations and 15 acres of non-plantation crops. The tractor was used only for the purpose of plantations according to the assessee. But the Department contended that the tractor was used for non-plantation crops. The non-plantation crops are only in a few acres. Considering all these aspects, 1/4th of the expenditure was disallowed by the Tribunal. On an appraisal of facts arising in the case, we are of the opinion, that the disallowance of 1/4th of the expenditure appears to be reasonable. In so far as the depreciation is concerned, that issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to allow the same in accordance with the Rules. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, on this item of expenditure. In the result, the tax case (revision) is partly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Appellate Orders, Financial Year, Interest Payable By Government On Excess Payment, Rectification Proceedings
-
1995 (4) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Business Income, Cash Compensatory Support ... ... ... ... ..... f the assets, though quantified as or geared to a percentage of such cost. If that be so, it does not partake of the character of a payment intended either directly or indirectly to meet the actual cost . We should prefer the reasoning of the majority of the High Courts to the one found acceptable by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. In view of the above decision of the apex court, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Central Government subsidy is not deductible from the money cost to the assessee of its plant, machinery and building while computing the original cost thereof under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of allowing depreciation, etc. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The first question, therefore, is answered in favour of the Revenue and the second question is answered in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 20 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... this court for our opinion. The point raised in the petition cannot be termed a question of fact inasmuch as the liability is sought to be determined after the interpretation of the provisions of section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to make a reference of the questions of law to this court detailed in the application of the reference filed under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1995 (4) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... on similar instances, the appropriate authority tried to justify its action on the ground that they were small plots. In our opinion, the appropriate authority cannot blow hot and cold simultaneously. From the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the appropriate authority has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in not considering the relevant and germane facts and in taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations and in passing the impugned order. The result is that the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside. For the foregoing reasons, the petition requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated February 23, 1993, annexure-A, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to complete the necessary formalities within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order of the court including issuance of clearance certificate. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 18 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Assessment, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... m April 1, 1988, are retrospective and are applicable to the assessment year under consideration, i.e., the assessment year 1987-88? The above controversy is concluded by the decision given by this court in the case of CIT v. Achaldas Dhanraj 1996 217 ITR 799 (Raj) (D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 9 of 1992 decided on March 27, 1995). Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and as such it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of Rs. 20,680 being the unpaid sales tax liability as on June 30, 1986, i.e., the last day of the previous year, should not be disallowed under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the same amount was paid within the time allowed under the relevant sales tax law. It is also held that the amended provisions of section 43B, introduced with effect from April 1, 1988, were applicable retrospectively to the assessment year 1987-88. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Specification Of Shares Of Partners ... ... ... ... ..... scheme envisaged for the assessment of registered firms and for registration accordingly and/or cancellation of registration in case registration had been granted wrongly. Applying the above, it is not possible to infer from the various clauses of the instrument that Mrs. Majeeth was in fact introduced as a partner in the firm which was dissolved after the death of her husband, Majeeth. There are good reasons to think that the leasehold which she assigned and some other properties which she brought to the firm were accepted on the term of payment each month of Rs. 1,750 and nothing more out of the profits of the firm and she was kept immune from any loss of the business of the firm. The relationship between Pandurangan and Mrs. Majeeth was close to that of lessee and lessor and almost constituted a relationship of licensee and licensor. The Tribunal has committed an error in holding in favour of the registration of the firm.The references are answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... sallowance under section 40(b) of the Act and rejected the opinion of this court expressed in CIT v. O. M. S. S. Sankaralinga Nadarand Co. 1984 147 ITR 332. The ruling of this court in Sankaralinga Nadars case 1984 147 ITR 332 was given on December 7, 1982, while the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the instant cases are dated August 5, 1978, and December 14, 1978, respectively, before the decision of this court in Sanharalinga Nadar s case 1984 147 lTR 332. The Appellate Tribunal followed the decision of the Allahabad High Court and the Board s circular and held that the net interest received from the partner should be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act. We find no error of law in the above view expressed by the Appellate Tribunal, in view of the above ruling of the Supreme Court. We answer the question referred to us in the two cases of reference, in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
False Statement, Mens Rea ... ... ... ... ..... or the offence under section 276C of the Act. When the learned Principal Sessions Judge has given a finding on the facts that the omission to include the notional rental income in the return for 1984-85 is not wilful or wanton and this finding has become final as it was not challenged by any appeal, naturally that finding of fact is binding upon this court also against which this court cannot give a different finding on the same facts, though the offence may vary. From the findings of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, As the omission in the return for 1984-85 was not wilful the statement of return is not false to the knowledge of the petitioner, and it cannot attract the punishment under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, the finding of conviction for the said offence is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, setting aside the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner is acquitted of the charge. The revision is allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction To Impose Penalty, Law Applicable To Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... one who has not done any such thing and if any such thing is done unknowingly or inadvertently should be subjected to penalty. If only on the basis of assessment of escaped income or on the basis of later disclosure of some income by the assessee, it has to be inferred that he has infringed the requirements of law, there will be no purpose of a separate penalty proceedings. The very fact that penalty proceedings are separately taken out and an opportunity is given to the assessee to show cause and produce evidence, etc., must assume that before inflicting penalty, it should be examined whether there is a deliberate concealment of income by the assessee of particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We are inclined, for the said reason, in the instant case to remit the case to the Tribunal to consider in the light of the observations above whether any penalty should be imposed upon the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (4) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits ... ... ... ... ..... rder under section 13 by the Surtax Officer was justified. The Tribunal was also right in holding that the deposit made with the Industrial Development Bank of India by the assessee for a sum of Rs. 9,23,283 in lieu of surcharge on income-tax was not deductible for computing the chargeable profits under the Surtax Act. On considering the facts arising in the present case in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the deposit made with the Industrial Development Bank of India by the assessee in lieu of surcharge on income-tax was deductible for computing the chargeable profits under the Surtax Act. Therefore, we hold that the deposit made in lieu of surcharge on income-tax is not deductible for computing the chargeable profit under the Surtax Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. However, there will be no order as to costs.
....
|