|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 408 Records
-
1996 (8) TMI 68 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Hotel Building ... ... ... ... ..... ble to run the hotel in question in any ordinary building constructed without any consideration for the needs and requirements of the hotel. In those cases, the buildings may qualify as plant but that would depend upon the facts of each case. We are conscious that such cases would be few and far between, but in order to answer the question definitely it would be necessary to examine the facts from this angle. We find that the Tribunal has not approached the question from this angle and, in our opinion, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Tribunal in the light of the material facts as indicated in this judgment. As repeatedly observed hereinabove, the test would be whether the hotel building of the assessee is such that it formed the means for the carrying on of the hotel business or it simply provided the setting and the necessary space for the carrying on of the business. The reference is answered accordingly. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Tribunal.
-
1996 (8) TMI 67 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... be taken in this case also. We may point out that in that case the expenditure on business hospitality was incurred for providing tea, coffee, beverages, etc., to the employees of the company as well as to the customers and the expenditure incurred on the employees was inseparable from the expenditure incurred on the customers. It was on those facts that it was held that such expenditure on business hospitality would not fall even within the enlarged meaning given to that expression by Explanation 2 to sub-section (2A) of section 37. From the above discussion it follows that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is within the enlarged meaning of entertainment expenditure given by Explanation 2 to section 37(2A) of the Act and, therefore, the assessee cannot claim deduction of that expenditure in computing its total income. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is accordingly answered.
-
1996 (8) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Waiver Or Reduction Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the settlement under some mistake of fact or law or that any such other thing has happened after the settlement that he should be allowed to disown the settlement and the penalties be further reduced or waived completely. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikram Gulati, also placed reliance on Smt. Kherunissa Allibhai v. CIT 1978 113 ITR 443 (Guj) Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT 1995 213 ITR 10 (Guj) D. Halappa Sons v. CIT 1974 95 ITR 542 (Mys) and Padgilwar Brothers v. CIT 1971 81 ITR 258 (Bom). There is nothing in any of these judgments that is relevant to the point in issue and is of any help to the assessee. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Commissioner rightly declined to entertain the petitioner s application under section 273A of the Act and there are no reasons for the exercise of this court s extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondents.
-
1996 (8) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Question Of Law, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... the deceased assessee, it was annulled. Shri R. P. Sawhney, senior advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the revised return had been filed by the widow of the deceased assessee and, therefore, the widow, being the legal heir was duly represented at the time of assessment. Notices had been duly issued by the Assessing Officer under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act on October 30, 1991, November 14, 1991 and March 2, 1992, to the legal heirs. It is stated that the annulment was not at all valid inasmuch as the assessment had been completed on the basis of the revised return and in the presence of the legal heirs. From the controversy as emerging from the facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court for opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in annulling the assessment ? Ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 64 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reversionary Value ... ... ... ... ..... 684 (Cal), Ram Saran Kajriwal s case 1987 168 ITR 485 (All) and Smt. Urmila L. Pittie s case 1995 215 ITR 356 (Bom). Against the judgment in Ram Saran Kajriwal s case 1987 168 ITR 485 (All) (sic), special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India on January 19, 1995. The Gujarat High Court had also taken the same view in W. T. A. Nos. 25-29 of 1985, against which special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India on April 22, 1992. We have examined Dina Nath s case 1970 77 ITR 193 (P and H), on which reliance was placed by counsel for the Revenue. In the aforesaid case, the point in issue was totally different and has no relevance to the point in issue in the present case. Counsel for the Revenue failed to cite any judgment taking a contrary view to the judgments relied upon by the assessees. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 63 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Income From Other Sources, Interest Payments, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... This rule of accountancy, the apex court held, should be adopted for determining the actual cost of the assets in the absence of any statutory definition or other indication to the contrary. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that interest incurred during the period of construction of plant should be treated as an addition to the cost of the project unless of course the loan was borrowed for working capital purposes. Such interest would go into the capitalisation amount. In view of the decision rendered by the apex court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. 19751 98 ITR 167, in our opinion, the present question is squarely covered by the said decision. Accordingly, we answer the question in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no direction as to costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 62 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deduction In Respect, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... terms of such assessment order but since there are thousands and lakhs of shareholders falling in the jurisdiction of different Assessing Officers, as such it is more practical to assess the shareholders on the basis of the provisional certificate and after the final figure is arrived at and the provisional certificate is varied in terms of the assessment order of the company, the shareholders are to be assessed in that light in the subsequent year. In view of the above, we answer the question in the case of Reference No. 187 of 1992, in the negative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Similarly, we answer the question in the case of Reference No. 44 of 1993 in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Let our opinion along with our answers to the questions referred to this court be transmitted to the Income-tax Tribunal. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we order that there shall be no order as to costs. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA J. --- I agree.
-
1996 (8) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Income Tax, Regular Assessment, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... not the amount properly chargeable from it under the provisions of the Act for that year and that there is any excess. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the whole amount of pre-paid taxes is refundable to it is, therefore, not tenable and is hereby rejected. As regards the amounts, if any, paid by the assessee in pursuance of the two assessment orders the liability to refund the same is not denied by the Revenue and it has claimed that the refunds due to the assessee have been adjusted in accordance with the provisions of section 241 of the Act. If there is any controversy with regard to the adjusting of the refund or the extent thereof it is permissible to the assessee to lay, its claim before the Assessing Officer who shall decide the same by a speaking order in accordance with law preferably within two months of the making thereof. With the above observations, the present writ petition is dismissed. The parties will, however, bear their own costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 60 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Fair Market Value, Leasehold Interest, Movable Property, Petition Against Order, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Restriction On Transfer, Writ Petition
-
1996 (8) TMI 59 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Voluntary Disclosure ... ... ... ... ..... been confirmed by the Tribunal. We have gone through both the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal and we are of the opinion that these are purely questions of fact as the voluntary disclosure certificates were not produced before the Income-tax Officer and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer rightly recorded the finding of disallowance and when they were produced before the appellate authority, i.e., the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the same were accepted in evidence in respect of Ku. Navneet Kaur and Sardar Narender Singh. In this view of the matter, in our view, the Tribunal has correctly approached the matter. All the three questions referred by the Tribunal are purely questions of fact and no question of law is involved therein. In view of the concurrent findings of the two courts below, there is no question of law involved for answer by this court. Consequently, this reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (8) TMI 58 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Notice For Reassessment, Revision By Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... y is authorised to assess the escaped turnover within a prescribed period of five years under section 35, that is the function of the assessing authority and not the function of the Commissioner. When the power under section 34 is clearly an extraordinary power conferred on the Commissioner, he cannot escape by saying that the power can be exercised by him within a period of five years. Therefore, the Commissioner is not entitled to get a period of five years for invoking the power under section 34. Even though the Government Pleader makes a formidable plea in this regard, we do not find, our way to accepting the said contention in view of the fact that the provisions contained in sections 34 and 35 are separate and distinct and one cannot be applied for the other. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner under section 34 of the Act in respect of the years 1981-82 and 1978-79. The tax revision cases are accordingly allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 57 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... Out of these seven beneficiaries, three are common. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that both the questions Nos. (1) and (2), though not specifically agitated by the Department, are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Coming to the third question whether the trust created on July 1, 1981, has been rightly assessed under section 161 of the Act or not, it may be mentioned that the Tribunal has confirmed the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and we do not take a contrary view. The second trust has come into existence and the benefits arising out of the shares of seven beneficiaries had been determined. Therefore, this trust has to be assessed in a representative capacity under section 161 of the Act and it has been done by the Tribunal. Hence, we answer question No. (3) in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, all the three questions are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (8) TMI 56 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation Of Registration Of Firm, Firm Consisting, In Part, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... of the loss too has to be distributed amongst them though the result may be that the profit-sharing ratio is different from the ratio in which the losses are to be shared. This, however, was the clear intention of the parties when they provided that the minor would not share the losses and the whole loss would be shared by the partners. A minor is not a partner and is only a person admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the partnership deed made a provision about the manner in which the losses were to be shared amongst the adult partners and that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 186(1) of the Act. The question reproduced above is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The respondent will get its costs of this reference from the Commissioner of Income-tax which we assess at Rs. 1,500.
-
1996 (8) TMI 55 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, High Court, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Plant And Machinery, Question Of Law
-
1996 (8) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... out having been in existence for more than twenty years. Therefore, the replacement of the same has become imperative. The assessee replaced the old worn out hardboard by replacing the asbestos sheets. The false ceiling is not a ceiling by itself since it is only an addition to the original ceiling. Therefore, the expenditure involved in the matter of replacing the hardboard ceiling with asbestos sheets ceiling would not bring in any new asset or bring an enduring benefit to the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be considered to be towards capital outlay. Thus considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the various judicial pronouncements cited supra, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the expenditure involved in replacing the hardboards false ceiling with asbestos sheets would amount to expenditure of revenue nature. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department.
-
1996 (8) TMI 53 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Wholly And Exclusively ... ... ... ... ..... he assessee. That being so, such amount was properly allowed in computing the income chargeable under section 28 of the Act. The conclusion is based on appreciation of facts and, as such, it does not give rise to the questions as proposed. In CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. 1976 103 ITR 543 (SC) and CIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy and Sons 1971 79 ITR 499 (SC), it is held that the conclusion based on appreciation of facts does not give rise to any question of law. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and legal position, we are satisfied that the aforesaid questions are not referable questions of law and, as such, these cases are meritless. We, therefore, dismiss these miscellaneous civil cases with no orders as to costs. Counsel fee for each side in each case, is however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. Retain this order in the record of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 546 of 1994 and place its copy each in the other two remaining Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 547 and 548 of 1994.
-
1996 (8) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... it was not argued before any of the three authorities, considering it to be a question of law and public importance, we have devoted this much in regard to the contention that section 13(2)(b) would have to be understood as relating to immovable property only and not movable property. This is even in spite of the position of the contention not having been taken up earlier. It is a contention of law and it must be answered and we have answered it. For the above reasons, we confirm the order of the Tribunal. We answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We also answer question No. 3 affirmatively, that there was material--against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 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.
-
1996 (8) TMI 51 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ferred at the instance of the assessee, the assessee is within its right to indicate that no answer be recorded on such question. That question is, thus, left unanswered as not pressed. As regards the questions projected and proposed in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 596 of 1994 for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, we answer the same in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department, on the same logic as pertained to the questions proposed in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 142 of 1993. In the result, these two miscellaneous civil cases are decided in terms indicated above, but without any order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side in each case is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. Retain this order in the record of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 142 of 1993 and place its copy in the record of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 596 of 1994. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal for further action in accordance with law, if necessary.
-
1996 (8) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... le that the appropriate authority has to make up its mind to buy the property or not. It is clear from the tenor of the language used in the impugned order that the appropriate authority has come to the conclusion that because of the alleged defects in the title of the vendor it should not purchase the property in question. Therefore, declining to buy the property is clear from the order and that being so the only other option open to the authority was to issue a no objection certificate as required by law. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct the appropriate authority, Income-tax Department, Lucknow, respondent No. 1, to issue a no objection certificate as contemplated by section 269UL(3) of the Act to the petitioner in respect of the property in question within a period of 30 days from the date the petitioner produces a certified copy of this order before it. The petitioner will get its costs of this writ petition from the respondents which we assess at Rs. 3,000.
-
1996 (8) TMI 49 - KERALA HIGH COURT
House Property, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... erstood as income from house property because the assessee is not the owner of the house property which is still the subject-matter of the agreement. In our judgment, the Income-tax Officer as well as the Tribunal determined the income under the head Income from other sources . For all these reasons, we answer the questions in the following manner Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee Question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee Question No. 3 is unnecessary as observed in this judgment Question No. 4 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee Question No. 5 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for passing consequential orders.
....
|
