|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 400 Records
-
1996 (10) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... uld have to be said that when the original assessment proceedings have been finalised and reassessment proceedings have been initiated to assess escaped income, it is observed, it is only the determination of the correct total income for the assessment year in question that is being redone. In the process of reasoning, in the context, the apex court has also referred to its earlier decision in V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT/CEPT 1970 75 ITR 373. The apex court has emphasised the purpose of reassessment proceedings. However, in the light of the subsequent decision, the questions get neatly answered. For the above reasons, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (10) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Concealment, Penalty, Firm, Co-owners ... ... ... ... ..... 229 ITR 671), decided on August 23, 1996, proceeded in a situation where the assessee had expired and efforts in the direction of bringing the legal heirs were not successful since the function of the reference court is to answer the questions referred, taking the assistance of counsel appearing in the matter. Even earlier, in a similar situation, in I. T. R. Nos. 35 and 36 of 1990, CIT v. K. P. Varoo 1998 229 ITR 667 (Ker), decided on July 5, 1996, the same course was adopted and we continue to adopt the same in regard to these two references. Consequently, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to adopt the necessary proceedings to bring the heirs and legal representatives on record and to pass consequential orders to enable the Revenue to proceed with the recovery as a consequence thereof. 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, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (10) TMI 18 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Refund, Interest, Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ought about by orders passed subsequent to the regular assessment as mentioned in sub-section (1A). It will be thus seen that the assessee is entitled to interest under section 214 read with 244(1A) of the Act, even when section 214(1A) has come into effect from April 1, 1985. However, the words regular assessment in both sections 214 and 215 would mean only the original assessment and not the last operative order or the assessment made pursuant to an appellate/revisional order. As already pointed out, learned counsel for the non-applicant/assessee has conceded that question No. 2 deserves to be answered against him. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 is, however, answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The reference thus stands disposed of as aforesaid but without any order as to costs. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal.
-
1996 (10) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case, Opportunity ... ... ... ... ..... dent No. 1 after hearing each of the petitioners and considering the representation and/or objection made to the show-cause notice and after recording reasons. Since no affidavit has been filed by the respondent the allegations made in the writ petition will be deemed to have been denied by the respondent. There will be no order as to costs. The order passed in the present writ petition will govern W. P. No. 2111 of 1996 (Hitesh Chandak v. CIT), W. P. No. 2112 of 1996 (Prabha Devi Chandak v. CIT-II, Central Cal.), W. P. No. 2113 of 1996 (Debesh Chandak and Sons v. CIT, Central-II, Cal), W. P. No. 2114 of 1996 (Anita Maheswari v. CIT, Central-II, Cal.) W. P. No. 2115 of 1996 (Central Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, Central-II, Cal.), W. P. No. 2116 of 1996 (Saroj Devi Chandak v. CIT, Central-II, Cal.) and W. P. No. 2117 of 1996 (Dipesh Chandak v. CIT, Central-II, Cal.). All parties are to act on signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking.
-
1996 (10) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
High Court, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... section 11 read with section 13(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal decided the question whether the assessee is entitled to relief section 10(22) of the Act. As against the question framed and suggested before this court, it is not possible to frame altogether a question which is extraneous to the order of the Tribunal. If the question framed by the parties does not reflect the real controversy that arises out of the order of the Tribunal, it is not possible to frame or reframe a question as suggested by the Department, since that would go beyond the jurisdiction of this court. This was the view expressed by the Supreme Court and various High Courts cited supra. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are unable to accede to the request made by learned standing counsel appearing for the Department to reframe the question. In the result, the tax case petition is rejected, since the question suggested by the Department does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal.
-
1996 (10) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue, Compensation For Delay ... ... ... ... ..... uestion, the Calcutta High Court held that payment for low output as such is a revenue receipt and not a rebate on the actual price of the machinery originally supplied by the German firm to the assessee. In the present case, on the facts, it was held that a part of the compensation paid related to sterilisation of profit-making apparatus, which was paid as a contract price. Payment for low output as such was not separately taken into consideration in the instant case. In view of the foregoing reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the negative in so far as that part of the question which related to payment made for sterilisation of the profit-making apparatus, viz., 1/3rd of Rs. 9.5 lakhs. Accordingly, we answer this part of the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In respect of the rest of the portion of the amount paid by the Japanese company, we are answering that portion of the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... first day of the computation period there was only a recommendation by the directors to declare a dividend, but the actual declaration was yet to follow after the decision of the general body at the annual general meeting, that the proposed dividend was not a debt owed on the first day of the computation period and that, therefore, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of the proposed dividend was not liable to be deducted from the aggregate value of the assets for determining the capital employed for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 80J. From the foregoing discussion, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the proposed dividend of Rs. 2,40,000 should not be taken into account for the purpose of computation of capital for allowing relief under section 80J of the Act as debt owed on January 1, 1971. In that view, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Mandatory Requirement, Tax Deducted At Source, Scheme, Approval ... ... ... ... ..... force with effect from August 18, 1992, the payments received between April 1, 1992, and August 18, 1992, by the retiring employees of a company under the voluntary retirement scheme will also be entitled for income-tax exemption under section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, provided the voluntary retirement scheme is in accordance with the guidelines contained in the said rule and satisfies the conditions laid down in the section. It will not be necessary to deal with the above contention of the petitioner as the petition can be disposed of on the short ground that the respondent-company did not apply for approval of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner which was a mandatory requirement under the first proviso to section 10(10C) of the Act. Therefore, the guidelines as referred to will be of no consequence. In view of the above, the present petition cannot succeed and is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order is to costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accrual, Contract, Dispute ... ... ... ... ..... ter the award was passed by the arbitrator. The Government disputed the claim made by the assessee, with the result the matter has now gone to the High Court. Therefore, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that this amount cannot be included as income in the assessment year 1975-76. The fact remains that the assessee made a claim of Rs. 57,927. The Government of Andhra Pradesh disputed this amount. The assessee went to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to settle the dispute. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that this amount accrued to the assessee in the assessment year 1975-76. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in holding that this sum of Rs. 57,927 has got to be deleted from the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal with regard to the deletion of the above said amount. We answer question No. 2 also in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... clearly found that the assessing authority had failed to follow the statutory provisions as laid down under s. 35 of the Act and so they were found to be irregular. When the assessments are found to be irregular, the only way open before the Commr. Agrl. IT is to set aside the order because the assumption of power under s. 35 is erroneous. Instead of setting aside the orders, the Commissioner has remanded the case for fresh disposal. That is clearly an ineffective action as far as the power of the Commr. Agrl. IT is concerned. In exhibit P -2 order, the Commissioner observed that when the escape was noticed the assessing authority issued a notice. This is not correct . That also indicates that the proceedings initiated by the officer is clearly erroneous. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the impugned orders in both the original petitions are set aside. Accordingly, exhibits P -1 and P-2 orders in both the cases are quashed. The original petitions are allowed as above.
-
1996 (10) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration, Liqour ... ... ... ... ..... itative pronouncement in relation to the situation of sub-partnership, after making observations, a reference to the larger Bench was made by the apex court. In our judgment, the Full Bench decision of this court wholly binds us. Apart therefrom, the Full Bench drew strength from Bihari Lal Jaiswal s case 1996 217 ITR 746 of the apex court. In addition, the observations referred to above with reference to B. Posetty and Co. s case 1996 220 ITR 216 also referred to the position that Bihari Lal Jaiswal s case 1996 217 ITR 746 (SC) would also apply in the case of sub-partnerships. We make it clear that in the proceedings before us, there is no question of sub-partnership in any way. For the above reasons, we answer both the questions in the negative, 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, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (10) TMI 9 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at least. The other material on record which has been considered by the Tribunal also shows that the Tribunal would be more than justified to consider the contents of the letter as hazardous to reach the conclusion regarding the domicile of choice, if considered along with other circumstances. We do not find any error with regard to the manner in which the final fact-finding authority---Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench---has dealt with the situation with regard to the material on record to determine the claim of the accountable person that the deceased had a domicile of choice as Bahrain. This being the situation, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative---in favour of the Revenue and against the accountable person. Question No. 3---answer is declined as it is not necessary. 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, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (10) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Building Tax ... ... ... ... ..... uilding just like the bricks or tiles. If that is so, the conclusion follows as a necessary sequitur that the amount would be categorised as capital expenditure. In order to attract the claim for deduction as allowable, the amount of tax has to be a payment for the purpose of business or profession, which is not the position. In the above situation, we answer the questions as follows Question No. 1 is answered in the negative---in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 2 is also answered in the negative---in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative that the building tax is on the capital value of the building and levied with reference to the value of the asset---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, Cochin Bench, for passing consequential orders.
-
1996 (10) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Tribunal, Rectification, Discretion Of Council ... ... ... ... ..... ow in attributing mistake to counsel with an attitude of an easy approach of a temptation to blame somebody who is absent and far away from the court still holding the traditional position of being the officer of the court may be some other than this court. In our judgment, if the Tribunal, while rejecting the application, has observed that it should be deemed to have been decided against him or at least it could be presumed that the concerned issue was not pressed before the Tribunal, will have to be understood as having acted in consonance with the recognition of the discretion of counsel. For all the above reasons, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and question No. 2 in the negative, 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, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (10) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Charitable Trust - Tribunal was justified in finding that the object of the assessee-trust is the advancement of an object of general public utility not involving the carrying on of an activity for profit and hence the object of the trust is for a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15)
-
1996 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Claim for deduction of expenditure for the purpose of business under section 37(1) - amounts paid to the Madhya Pradesh sales tax authorities under the provisions of section 8(2) and 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 - held that penalty levied under section 8(2) and 17(5) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act paid by the assessee is not a allowable expenditure
-
1996 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Tax Recovery Officer - partition suit was filed for division of the properties by metes and bounds among the sharers, an attempt was made by the State to have the estate attached for recovery of the tax dues - held that since the income tax and other dues are a first charge on the estate of the deceased, the State had rightly proceeded to recover the tax arrears from the estate before partition - held that executing court had power to proceed with the recovery
-
1996 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the common appellant in these appeals who was original petitioner No. 2 in these special leave petitions had any locus standi to prefer an application u/r 60, for setting aside the sale of immovable property of the defaulter assessee from whom he is alleged to have agreed to purchase the said property and which property was sold in auction by the Dept. - held that the intending purchaser had no locus standi to file the application u/r 60.
-
1996 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Claim fore deduction of the amounts paid by it to the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Fund, West Godavari (Branch Eluru) as a business expenditure under section 37(1) - Tribunal was justified to hold that the contribution made to the welfare fund was not opposed to public policy and that the same was motivated purely by commercial consideration, and that the deduction was allowable under section 37(1)
-
1996 (10) TMI 1 - CEGAT (MUMBAI)
Service Tax – Stock Brokerage (1) Service tax included in the brokerage (2) No proviso for collection of duty (3) Demand and Interest not sustainable
....
|
