|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 339 Records
-
1996 (11) TMI 39 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Business Profits, Capital Gains, Question Of Law, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1996 (11) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, In Part, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Tribunal's Order, Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... f procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Then, in Ramji Das v. Mohan Singh 1978 Allahabad Rent Cases 496, the Supreme Court observed that as far as possible, the court s discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing. The present is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India which confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the court to issue appropriate writs. This extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked for enforcing technicalities of law and for setting aside orders that are otherwise just and do not adversely affect the petitioner. In view of the above, I find no force in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed, with costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appellate Assistant Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... erest under section 220(2) of the Act, no appeal will lie to the first appellate authority. Since no appeal will lie before the first appellate authority, further appeal to the Tribunal as against the order passed by the first appellate authority would also become redundant. If the order passed by the Tribunal touching the validity of levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act is unsustainable, no question arises out of the order of the Tribunal on this aspect and referred for the opinion of this court. Accordingly, since the order passed by the Tribunal with regard to the validity of the interest under section 220(2) of the Act is non est, in the eye of law, no question of law would arise out of the order of the Tribunal as framed and suggested by the Tribunal as questions Nos. 1 and 3. Accordingly, we are also not answering questions Nos. 1 and 3 referred to us. Accordingly, the reference is incompetent and we decline to answer the questions referred to us. No costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 36 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Chief Commissioner, Sanction For Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... g him to show cause why a criminal prosecution be not launched against him. This notice obviously cannot be treated as an order according sanction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Income-tax Department has not taken the stand that the Commissioner of Income-tax has accorded sanction and the order is there in the file but the same has not been filed along with the petition of complaint. From these facts, it appears that prosecution of the petitioner is fit to be quashed as no sanction as required under section 279 of the Act has been obtained which is the condition precedent for taking congnizance. Accordingly, this application is allowed and prosecution of the petitioner is hereby quashed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Assessing Officer, Capital Gains Tax, Sale Proceeds ... ... ... ... ..... rmation, gathered subsequently leading him to the situation as regards the correctness and completeness of the return. This is on reading the plain language of the provision that it is a power given by the statutory provision irrespective of a situation showing exercise of powers under section 143(1) of the Act and as an independent power based on satisfaction for verification of the correctness or completeness. Thus, it would be found that this court has considered in detail the position of law in I. T. R. No. 146 of 1987, CIT v. R. Krishnarjunan 1997 225 ITR 510, decided on June 17, 1996. For the above reasons, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We also answer question No. 2 in the negative, 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 (11) TMI 34 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, High Court, Income From House Property, Law Applicable, Question Of Law, Reassessment Proceedings, Wealth Tax
-
1996 (11) TMI 33 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... the decision in dismissing the said miscellaneous petition. Our discussion hitherto would show that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not only dealt with the two assessment years separately, but has also recorded its independent and separate reasons on the basis of which the Tribunal has found that the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to the amount of Rs. 7,60,276 is acceptable and at the other end beyond a vague statement, there is no explanation with regard to the entry relating to the amount of Rs. 47,422 in the same bank account of the Federal Bank Ltd., Quilon. Thus, there is no incongruity or any kind of error apparent on the face of the record. For the above reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative, 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 (11) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Exchange Fluctuation
-
1996 (11) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Exchange Fluctuation, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... of the loan was to be made in instalments spread over several years, On account of fluctuations in the exchange rate, the amount of instalments repaid in the period relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 was greater than the amount of the instalments agreed upon at the time of borrowal by a firm (sic) of Rs. 93,223 and for the assessment year 1976-77 by Rs. 1,13,085. The assessee claimed these amounts as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer in nature (sic). On appeal, the Tribunal, following an earlier Special Bench order of the Tribunal of the Bombay Bench, held that the amount claimed by the assessee is capital in nature. In T. C. Nos. 87 and 88 of 1984 in the case of the same assessee in the assessment years 1974-75 and 1977-78, this court by judgment dated October 9, 1995, held that the higher instalments paid due to exchange fluctuation is capital in nature. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 30 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Carrying On Business, Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... nheuser Busch Brewing Association v. United States (52 L.Ed 336-338). Both these decisions of the Supreme Court of America have been approved by the Supreme Court of India also. It is true that even if the chicks which develop into broilers and they are dressed and sold in the market, they still continue to be chicks only. Therefore, there is no substantial change in the matter. Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change in an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation and does not necessarily mean that on account of certain treatment and manipulation, a new identity has come to be acquired. In the present case, the chicks are only reared for a few days and they are developed thereafter they become broilers. Therefore, even after rearing, they remain chicks only. Hence, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct and we answer the reference against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1996 (11) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Approved Gratuity Fund ... ... ... ... ..... Fund Ltd. v. CIT 1989 179 ITR 492, wherein on similar facts, this court held that payment of gratuity actually made to the approved gratuity fund was the expenditure incurred for the purpose of business in the year in which the payment was made and allowable under section 37 of the Act. Even after the introduction of the provision of section 40A(7) in the Act in 1973, there is no change in the legal position so far as the actual payment of gratuity is concerned. Hence, the actual payment towards gratuity liability is allowable in the year in which it is paid. So also the payment on the basis of the actuarial valuation towards approved gratuity fund is allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(v) of the Act. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in confirming the deletion of Rs. 65,499 made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital For Purposes, Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... se of its business purposes until the debentures are redeemed. In such a case, the debenture redemption sinking fund was not earmarked for a particular purpose, namely, redemption of debentures. Only in such a case, the debenture redemption sinking fund would be called a provision . If, on the other hand, the amounts from the debenture redemption sinking fund are available for the use of the assessee-company for its own business purposes, then it would be merely a reserve and it cannot be called a provision . This is to satisfy the test as laid down by the decision of this court rendered in CIT v. Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. 1996 221 ITR 753. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the debenture redemption sinking fund is a reserve and not a provision . Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department in both the assessment years under consideration. No costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital, Cost Of Acquisition, Set On, Supreme Court
-
1996 (11) TMI 26 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Plant And Machinery, Plant Or Machinery, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... t development rebate on a plant and machinery installed after May 31, 1974, the assessee was required to furnish evidence that he had entered into a contract for purchase of such machinery or plant with the manufacturer or owner of, or a dealer in, such machinery or plant before December 1, 1973. In the instant case, pointed out the Department, the agreement for supply of plant and machinery was in fact made on December 28, 1973, as is clear from clause (XI) of para. 2 of the order of the Tribunal itself. We refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as we propose to allow the application. We are, however, satisfied that a case is made out to direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the above noted question for the opinion of this court. We order accordingly. The application thus stands disposed of as aforesaid but without any order as to costs. A copy of the order to be transmitted to the Tribunal for doing the needful within nine months from today.
-
1996 (11) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion of the Income-tax Officer to it. Law is one thing, and its communication another. If the distinction between the source of the law and the communication of the law is carefully maintained, the confusion which often results in applying section 147(b) may be avoided. In view of the pronouncement of the decision in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Ltd. v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 996 (SC), the decision in R. K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai 1977 109 ITR 537 (SC), would no longer be good law. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the reassessment made in pursuance of the audit note and restoring the original assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal was also correct in not disposing of the appeal on the merits. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 24 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ing the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under appeal were manufactured by the assessee in the industrial undertaking though in the earlier year. It, therefore, cannot be said that the goods sold during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under appeal were not from the goods produced by the assessee in its industrial activity. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this additional contention as well. The assessee will, therefore, be entitled to relief under s. 80J in respect of slate and timber business. 3. We are entirely in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal in that paragraph. Hence, we answer the second part of the question in the affirmative and hold that the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80J even though there was no exploitation of forest and sizing of timber during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year but sales were effected of the material already produced from such activity in earlier years.
-
1996 (11) TMI 23 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... the case on the basis of the Supreme Court in decision Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). 5. The learned Advocate-General has drawn our attention to the judgments in CIT vs. Indian Expanded Metals (P) Ltd. (1981) 21 CTR (Bom) 143 (1982) 134 ITR 483 (Bom) TC 25R.563, L.G. Balakrishna and Bros. Ltd. vs. CIT (1985) 151 ITR 270 (Mad) TC 25R.565, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation vs. CIT (1993) 113 CTR (Ker) 266 (1994) 205 ITR 19 (Ker) TC 25R.578 and Travancore Rayons Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (Ker) 190 (1996) 220 ITR 201 (Ker). On a perusal of the same we are of the opinion that they are not relevant for the purpose of this case and particularly in the view we have taken above. 6. Hence, the reference is answered in the affirmative by holding that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the hiring of certain machinery from the sister concern will not amount to transfer as provided in s. 80J(4)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, in the facts and circumstances of this case.
-
1996 (11) TMI 22 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Audit Objection, Fresh Information ... ... ... ... ..... e estate passed on the death of the husband of the accountable person. For that purpose, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty relied upon the fact that the deceased was assessed as a Hindu undivided family, both under the Income-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act. No further information of fact as such was given to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, so as to enable him to reopen the assessment. However, there was an objection of the audit. A direction was given to him by the audit to reopen the matter. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that what was available to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was not an information within the meaning of the section and there was no power in him to reopen the assessment already made. In such circumstances, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was not valid in law.
-
1996 (11) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Audit Objection, Fresh Information ... ... ... ... ..... that as it may, the fact remains that according to the statement prepared by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the account books, it appears that during 1986-87 and 1987-88, neither any depreciation nor loss has been shown and the assessee has shown the net profit of Rs. 18,77,888 (1986-87) and Rs. 20,65,452 (1987-88). This aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has mechanically accepted the revised computation filed by the assessee and assessed the book profit under section 115J on the basis of the revised computation filed by the assessee without going into the factual aspect of the matter, which has been examined by the Assessing Officer and it appears that during the accounting years 1986-87 and 1987-88, there was no carried forward loss. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and leave it to the Tribunal to work out the correct loss or depreciation, if there is any. Hence, all the aforesaid three questions are accordingly answered.
-
1996 (11) TMI 20 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... C No. 67 of 1969, dt. 5th Nov., 1971, quoted by the Tribunal, we may note the following observation made by Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, as he then was, speaking for the Bench. The learned Judge observed, Her interest in the jewels is limited to being allowed to wear them if the trustees do not withdraw them from her. To our minds, the interest appears to be of a permissive nature and cannot be called property, however, widely the expression may be interpreted. We, therefore, agree with the Tribunal that neither the interest of the Sahebzadi in the jewellery fund nor her interest in the shares fund is an asset within the meaning of the WT Act . We are in entire agreement with the observation of the Bench. In view of the said observation, the point is squarely covered by a binding judgment of this Court. Therefore, no referable question of law arises. In view of the above position, we opine that no referable question of law arises. Accordingly, the wealth-tax case is dismissed.
....
|
