|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 339 Records
-
1996 (11) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... was also examined by the Commissioner of Income-tax during the appellate proceedings and therein he had admitted to have advanced money to the assessee. The loan was returned by the assessee to Rajinder Prashad with interest by account payee cheque on August 13, 1986. A copy of the bank account had also been filed. On these facts, the Tribunal took the view that it was only a case of suspicion that the credit entry had been treated to be bogus and fictitious whereas the facts brought on record did not justify the suspicion. From the facts, as discussed above, there appears no question of law arising from the Tribunal s order. The finding of fact given by the Tribunal is based on the material on record. The Tribunal correctly took the view that the assessee was not supposed to prove the source of the loans. Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of evidence or proof. On these facts, the question, as sought to be referred, is declined. The application is dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 58 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... onal or any other jurisdiction. Therefore, an initiation of the proceedings for acquisition of immovable property in certain cases of transfers to counteract evasion of tax under Chapter XX-A and the consequent 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. The aforesaid enunciation of law by the Full Bench is binding on us and, therefore, we respectfully follow the same and hold that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, committed an error of law in declaring the proceedings initiated by the competent authority as barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for decision on the merits.
-
1996 (11) TMI 57 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, Burden Of Proof, Returned Income Less Than 80 Per Cent ... ... ... ... ..... ned by the assessee is less than 80 per cent, of his total assessed income, he shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income for the purposes of section 271(1)(c) unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part. The assessee failed to discharge the initial onus placed upon it, thereby making itself liable for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the reasons stated above, question No. 1 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee, as the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus placed upon it that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on its part. Similarly, parts (a) and (b) of question No. 2 are also answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 56 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... levant factor which cannot be glossed over while valuing the estate, i.e., the goodwill. Accordingly, we direct that while valuing the assessee s interest in the goodwill the Wealth-tax Officer will give due weight to the yield aspect of the assets. Since the factual data was not before the Commissioner of Wealth tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, therefore, both the authorities only directed to do this exercise and categorically recorded that the order will be confined to this limited purpose only. The rest of the order thus remained undisturbed and if the Assessing Officer wanted, he could have passed the assessment order within a period of four years. There was no question of merger because no issue of assessment was decided by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), he only confined himself to the valuation of goodwill. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessment is barred by time. We answer both the questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (11) TMI 55 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Salary For Purposes, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... so as to include that which is specifically excluded therefrom. Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee, relying on the case of CIT v. India Radiators Ltd. 1976 105 ITR 680 (Mad), urges that when bonus which was specifically excluded from the definition of salary and wages in the Payment of Bonus Act, could be held to be part of salary by the Madras High Court, why could the payment of personal allowance by the assessee-company to Sri Rao not be held to be part of his salary. There is nothing on the record to indicate that bonus and personal allowance are conceptually analogous and, therefore, on the analogy of bonus, payment of which was held to be one of the methods of payment of wages by the Madras High Court, no argument could be successfully made before us that payment of personal allowance should be treated as payment of salary. In the result, the aforesaid question is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (11) TMI 54 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... . 455, dated May 16, 1986, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes directing the competent authorities to drop the proceedings in cases where the apparent consideration of the property was less than Rs. 5 lakhs came up for interpretation before this court in CIT v. Export India Corporation (P.) Ltd. 1996 219 ITR 461. After taking into consideration the object with which the circular was issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, this court held that the same would be applicable to the proceedings pending at the appellate stage as well. The same view has been reiterated by this court in CIT v. Gobind Ram 1996 221 ITR 892 and in I.T.A. No. 7 of 1980--CIT v. Gursher Singh 1997 225 ITR 725, decided on November 18, 1996, along with four other appeals. In our opinion, there is no reason to differ from the view expressed in the abovereferred three decisions. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax deserve to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (11) TMI 53 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Immovable Property, Movable Property, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... v. Export India Corporation (P.) Ltd. 1996 219 ITR 461, this court has dismissed a number of appeals including I.T.A. No. 4 of 1982--CIT v. Gobind Ram 1996 221 ITR 892 and I.T.A. No. 4 of 1981--CIT v. Prem Nath. While dismissing Appeal No. 4 of 1982 (see 1996 221 ITR 892), vide its order dated May 6, 1996, the Division Bench has independently examined the issue and held that the object with which the circular dated May 16, 1986, has been issued deserves to be applied to the cases in which appeals have been filed by the Department. In all these appeals, it is not in dispute that the apparent value of the properties sought to be acquired by the Department is less than Rs. 5 lakhs. Therefore, without going into the merits of the other arguments raised in the appeals and by applying the ratio of the decisions in CIT v. Export India Corporation (P.) Ltd. 1996 219 ITR 461 (P and H) and I. T. A. No. 4 of 1982--CIT v. Gobind Ram 1996 221 ITR 892 (P and H), we dismiss these appeals.
-
1996 (11) TMI 52 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Levy Of Penalty, Undisclosed Income, Warehousing Corporation ... ... ... ... ..... ion has not been rebutted by the assessee by producing sufficient and reliable evidence. The assessee failed to produce the material facts on record, which would be sufficient to displace the legal presumption. The principal logical import of the Explanation is to shift the burden of proof from the Department to the shoulders of the assessee. The onus of proof for rebutting the presumption lay squarely on the assessee. In the result, the levy of penalty in the case of the assessee is found to be valid and justified in the light of clause (B) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal s finding that penalty was not leviable, cannot be sustained. The assessee failed to substantiate his explanation nor was there any material to show that the explanation offered by the assessee was bona fide and that all the material facts had been disclosed by him. The question of law is, therefore, answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (11) TMI 51 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Plant And Machinery, Raw Material ... ... ... ... ..... he attention of the assessee to the relief to which the assessee was clearly entitled but which the assessee had omitted to claim. That omission also was not a bar to the assessee making the claim in the year in which there was a profit because the Supreme Court has held in CIT v. Manmohan Das 1966 59 ITR 699, that a decision by the Assessing Officer who deals with the first year s assessment that the assessee cannot carry forward the loss to the next year is not binding on the assessee in the computation of the taxable income for the subsequent year in which there is a profit. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this objection of the Revenue is frivolous. This question is accordingly answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of our answers to the two questions as reframed by us, we see no reason to direct the Tribunal to refer the questions which were not referred by the Tribunal. The income-tax case is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 50 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Best Judgment Assessment, Delay In Filing Return, Due Time, Failure To File Return, Offences And Prosecution
-
1996 (11) TMI 49 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Special Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... 4) provided it answers the description of a special allowance or benefit given by the employer to the employee to meet the expenditure wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of the duties. The expenditure incurred by the employer, although was not a special allowance, it, undoubtedly, is a benefit specifically granted to meet the expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties relatable to the employment of the assessees since, they being foreigners and serving on a ship berthed in one of the Indian ports it became the duty of the employer to provide boarding and lodging facilities to them. The expenditure in question, therefore, qualifies for exemption under clause (14) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal was right in excluding the amounts in question from the total income of the assessees. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 48 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Question Of Law, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... nion that the following questions of law arise for the opinion of this court (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to allow relief to the assessee in respect of addition made on account of duty draw-back and cash incentive amounting to Rs. 3,19,827 (for the year 1981-82) and Rs. 1,05,610 (for the year 1982-83), without giving a finding as to whether the assessee becomes entitled to duty draw-back and cash incentive on cash basis or accrual basis (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the two years, i.e., 1981-82 and 1982-83 ? Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and the Tribunal is directed to refer the abovementioned questions of law to this court after drawing up a statement of the case and send the same to this court along with the record.
-
1996 (11) TMI 47 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... r 30, 1982, was non est as it was only a provisional return and a note had been appended to that return that it was filed provisionally in the absence of books. The submission of Mr. Gupta is that the return filed on September 30, 1982, being no return in the eyes of law, the return filed on March 12, 1985, was the first valid return under section 139(4) and, therefore, the assessment was completed within the limitation. It is difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Gupta since the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the return filed on September 30, 1982, was a valid return though the Tribunal held that a revised return could be filed relying upon the decision of this court in O. P. Malhotra v. CIT 1981 129 ITR 379. That aspect in Malhotra s case 1981 129 ITR 379 (Delhi), has not been approved by the Supreme Court in Sinha s case 1996 220 ITR 67. For the aforesaid reasons we answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 46 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... clear that the assessee s action of claiming the deduction in the relevant year was perfectly justified. There was no rational basis to hold on the strength of the letter dated April 17, 1976, that the claim of the assessee had become a bad debt only when that letter was written. Even prior to that letter it is clear that there was no chance of recovery of any amount by the assessee from the company or from the Government which had taken over the company in any foreseeable future. As there appeared to be no chance of recovery of any amount in the foreseeable future, the assessee having written off the claim as a bad debt was entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in the assessment year 1973-74. In this view of the matter, question No. 1 referred to us is answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. This reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 45 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From Other Sources, Industrial Undertaking, Manufacture Or Produce, Manufacture Or Production, Special Deduction
-
1996 (11) TMI 44 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, High Court, Movable Property, Petition Against Order, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government
-
1996 (11) TMI 43 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose, Valuation Officer, Valuation Report, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... rustees in the representative capacity to reopen assessments made on the beneficiaries mentioned therein. Since all the assessments were made only on the basis of valuation made under section 16A and for the assessment year 1989-90 though no reference was made under section 16A, the earlier years valuation prevailed because of the Departmental circular as well as rule 19 of Schedule III, such valuation was outside the scope of section 17 and the Wealth-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to revalue the same under section 17. The impugned notices are, therefore, quashed and the writ petitions allowed. No costs. After the judgment is pronounced, an oral application is made by learned counsel for the Revenue seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case does not involve any substantial question as to the interpretation of the Constitution nor does it raise any question of law of general importance which need to be decided by the Supreme Court. Leave is, therefore, refused.
-
1996 (11) TMI 42 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... iced by the Tribunal and conclusions arrived at, it cannot be held that the conclusions of the Tribunal are based on mere suspicion or surmises. In this view, the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna Flour Mills v. CIT 1962 44 ITR 501 will have no applicability to the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee had submitted that the delivery of the computers was taken by the assessee. Reliance was placed on invoice-cum-challan of Pertech Computers Ltd. That document only shows that delivery was taken by Altos from Pertech Computers Ltd. It is contended that it was taken on behalf of the assessee. The finding arrived at, however, is that actual delivery was not taken by the assessee. As noticed hereinbefore the management of Altos and Pertech Computers Ltd. is common. We are in agreement with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the findings recorded by it are findings of fact involving no question of law. In this view, the application is dismissed. No costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 41 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Cause Of Action, Estate Duty, Writ Petition Against Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... tribution from the petitioner it is a matter inter se the brothers and it is always open to the petitioner to take a stand that his brothers were not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings before the authorities under the Act and, therefore, he is not liable to contribute anything if any payment is made by his brothers towards the estate duty, under the orders passed against them in proceedings before the authorities under the Act. In this writ petition, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the orders which have been validly passed against his brothers. Further, as already indicated, the duty has been cast on the petitioner to file a return after the death of his father and the petitioner failed in filing the return. On this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is, therefore, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 40 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Assessment Proceedings, Law Applicable, Notice Of Reassessment, Reason To Believe, Reassessment Proceedings, Representative Assessee, Wealth Tax
....
|
