|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 408 Records
-
1996 (8) TMI 48 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ected by the Department and placed on record. The evidence could be oral or documentary and it could be by way of inference from the queries made by the Income-tax Officer from the assessee-company. If on the basis of the reply given by the assessee-company an inference was drawn by the Income-tax Officer, it would be discharging of the obligation of the Department. In view of the observations of this court as mentioned above, the view of the Appellate Tribunal is not correct. The order of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. The matter should be heard de novo by taking into consideration various circumstances mentioned by this court and the basic facts which were taken into consideration by the Income-tax Officer. Consequently, we quash the order of the Appellate Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to proceed de novo in the matter in the light of the observations made by this court in the order dated November 9, 1979. The reference is returned unanswered. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From Other Sources, Income Tax, Interest Payable, Profits Chargeable To Tax, Trading Liability
-
1996 (8) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Change In Constitution Of Firm, Dissolution Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... st take note of the change in the law as it stands by virtue of the amendment in section 187, that is, insertion of the proviso to sub-section (2), referred to above. The said proviso directs that the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) shall not apply to a case where the firm is dissolved on the death of any one of the partners. As a result of the insertion of the said proviso, it cannot be said that a change has occurred in the constitution of the firm. If that be so, section 187 would not be attracted. Consequently, the provisions of section 188 would apply and the Income-tax Officer will have to make separate assessments, one on the predecessor firm for the period from April 1, 1978, to August 28, 1978, and the second on the successor firm for the period from August 29, 1978, to March 31, 1979. In view of the above discussion, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is accordingly answered.
-
1996 (8) TMI 45 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
House Property, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... income since it is a return of loss far exceeding the adjustments made. No adjustments and no additional income-tax, therefore, can be levied. In our considered opinion, the order of the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the facts and law applicable to the case on hand. The order of the Tribunal in holding that the action of the Assessing Officer in making various adjustments under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is patently erroneous and the Tribunal was right in holding that section 143(1A)(a) will not apply to cases where loss declared by the assessee is merely reduced as a result of adjustment under section 143(1)(a) but does not result in income. Consequently, we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. This miscellaneous civil case is, thus, disposed of but without any orders as to costs. However, counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal.
-
1996 (8) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Accepting Partition, Assessing Officer, Delay In Filing Return, Partition In HUF, Protective Assessment, Waiver Of Penalty
-
1996 (8) TMI 43 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ownership Of Asset ... ... ... ... ..... hat the assessee was entitled to depreciation. On a reference to the High Court, the Division Bench held that the assessee was the owner of the property in the relevant previous year, though the legal title was not complete for want of a registered conveyance deed and that the assessee was entitled to depreciation since the building was owned and used by it for the purpose of its business. We may also note here that the same view is taken by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. 1991 190 ITR 655. For the above reasons, in our view, as the assessee was exercising the right of ownership in his own right as owner thereof, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act. For the aforementioned reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The R. C. is accordingly answered.
-
1996 (8) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Interest On Loans And Advances, Interest On Securities, Interest Tax ... ... ... ... ..... accept the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the co-operative land mortgage bank is also a corporate body established by the Co-operative Societies Act. It was pointed out that the co-operative land mortgage bank was formed under the Co-operative Societies Act, an enactment made by the Tamil Nadu Government, and the co-operative land mortgage bank was not established by the said Act. Under such circumstances, the conclusion of the Tribunal that interest on debentures issued by the co-operative land mortgage bank would go out of the purview of the Interest-tax Act, placing reliance on the proviso to section 193 and the provisions contained in section 18 of the Income-tax Act, is not acceptable. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, we answer the same in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 2,000 (rupees two thousand).
-
1996 (8) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Annual Value, House Property, Municipal Corporation ... ... ... ... ..... there is no rule for determining the annual letting value on the basis of the value of the land and the building. Therefore, in view of the abovesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court, it is not possible to accept the contention put forward by the Department that the annual letting value as fixed by the municipality, should be accepted. There is also no evidence on record to show that the rent received by the assessee is low because of any extraneous considerations, like relationship between the landlord and the tenant or any other contract. In the absence of such evidence, we are not in a position to reject the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the actual rent received by the assessee would form the fair rent, as contemplated under the Rent Control Act. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in accepting the annual letting value as given by the assessee. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. No costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 40 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose, Liability To Tax, Purchase Tax, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... for purchase tax liability and on the basis of that provision he had obtained the tax relief, he is legally bound to disclose to the Assessing Officer the cessation of liability during the subsequent year. Therefore, this is a case where section 41(1) is clearly applicable and the Revenue is entitled to assess the amount covered by the provision for purchase tax liability during the relevant accounting period. That being the clear position, we think, there is no case for the assessee to succeed in this reference. The order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and valid and it cannot be challenged under any circumstance. In view of the discussion hereinbefore, the question referred to us for decision is answered in the affirmative, that is to say, 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 (8) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Adequate Consideration, Deemed Gift, Immovable Property, Market Value, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... immovable property transferred would be equal to the market value of the shares as on the date of transfer. In CIT v. C. C. Subbarayadu 1988 171 ITR 310, the Andhra Pradesh High Court pointed out that the Tribunal should have determined the market value upon relevant data, compared it with the sale consideration specified in the sale deed and then should have come to a proper conclusion as to whether there was inadequate consideration or adequate consideration, either for attracting or for not attracting the provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. This was not done in the present case. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are coming to the conclusion that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that there is no transfer in this case, and even if there is transfer, the transfer is for adequate consideration. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department, with costs of Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand only).
-
1996 (8) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Quoted Equity Shares, Valuation Date ... ... ... ... ..... uoted equity shares as per the two circulars mentioned above. In the abovesaid circulars it is clearly stated that unless the liability is shown in the balance-sheet, it cannot be allowed as a deduction. In the present case, whatever might be the quantum of liability, there was no mention about the liability in the balance-sheet for the first year and only the provisional demand of estate duty was mentioned in the directors report and in the profit and loss account in the last two years. Therefore, in the present case, there is no possibility for allowing the entire estate duty liability determined much later after the valuation date in the wealth-tax assessment. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us in T. C. Nos. 864 to 869 of 1984 in the affirmative and against the assessee. So also in T. C. Nos. 870 and 871 of 1984, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 2,000 in each case.
-
1996 (8) TMI 37 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Excise Duty, High Court, Power To Call For Supplementary Statement, Power To Reframe Question
-
1996 (8) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, From Other Sources, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... was not correct in stating that the sum of Rs. 4,28,713 cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case, in the light of the decision cited supra, we hold that the assessee failed to establish that he is not the owner of the amount found in his possession. Accordingly, the said sum of Rs. 4,28,713 is liable to be assessed in his hands under section 69A of the Act and not rupees six lakhs under the head Other sources , since the entire rupees six lakhs was not in the possession of the assessee at the time of search. Therefore, the addition is sustainable under section 69A of the Act only to the extent of Rs. 4,28,715. To this extent, the order passed by the Income-tax Officer in making the addition under section 69A of the Act is in order. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department only to the extent of the addition of Rs. 4,28,713. No costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Excise Duty, Trading Receipt, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... stated to be pending in the Supreme Court. It is settled that any such amounts realised by a dealer as a part of price of goods are trading receipts and taxable as income, in view of the decision in the case of Chowringhee. Sales Bureau P. Ltd. v. CIT 1973 87 ITR 542 (SC). The order of the assessing authority levying income-tax on the aforesaid receipts is legally justified. Further, against the assessments under the Income-tax Act, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to avail of the proper procedure provided under the Income-tax Act. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated August 10, 1982, is hereby vacated.
-
1996 (8) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Claim For Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... is not necessary for us to go this far for the purpose of the present case. Arun Textile C 1991 192 ITR 700 (Guj) is also a case where the assessee claimed depreciation in the original return, but withdrew the claim of depreciation in its revised return. The Gujarat High Court disagreed with the Allahabad High Court and the Madras High Court, and agreed with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana and the Bombay High Courts. To the same effect is the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd. 1993 201 ITR 10 1, which is also a case where revised returns were filed withdrawing the original claim regarding depreciation. We may observe that sub-section (1) of section 34 was omitted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1988, with effect from April 1, 1988. In the result, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs. We thank Mr. A. V. Krishna Kaundinya for his assistance.
-
1996 (8) TMI 33 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Quoted Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... ready gone out of the profits and been debited in the account books of the company. Thus the true function of the above two clauses (a) and (e) is understood as being complementary with regard to the situation. It is indeed reflecting the true situation leading to the conclusion that as a provision for taxation, the amount of advance tax already paid gets justifiably entitled to be deducted even if it is shown both as an asset and liability, an anomalous situation apparently as a result of Schedule VI to the Companies Act. We have relied on the decision of the apex court which answered several such questions, because the position is declared by the said decision of the apex court. In the light of the above reasoning, we answer the question in the negative-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, as required by law.
-
1996 (8) TMI 32 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Unabsorbed Depreciation, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... that the impugned order does not amount to an amendment of an earlier order with a view to rectify a mistake apparent from the record, but it is an order passed on a reappraisal of the material facts and circumstances and on a fresh application of the legal position. In this case, it is not needed nor do we express any opinion as to which of the two orders passed by the Tribunal is founded on the correct legal position. In this case what we are concerned with is whether the Tribunal had any jurisdiction to recall an earlier order passed by it and to fix the case for rehearing. On a careful consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal plainly exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, which is wholly unsustainable in law. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated November 11, 1985, passed in M. A. No. 24 (Pat) of 1985. In the result, this application is allowed. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 31 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Unabsorbed Depreciation, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... ves unable to agree with the said decision of the Calcutta High Court in relation to the determination of the written down value as, to us, on a plain reading of the provisions of sections 80J and 43(6) of the Act in conjunction with Explanation 3 to section 43(6), the unabsorbed depreciation is also to be taken into account in arriving at the written down value. We, therefore, find that the Tribunal was not right in the facts and circumstances of the case, in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation was not to be deducted for working out the written down value for the purposes of allowing deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act. The question is, thus, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the applicability or otherwise of sub-clause (iv) to sub-section (1A)(II) to section 80J in relation to unabsorbed depreciation as the same does not arise out of the question referred for our opinion.
-
1996 (8) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Court Fee, Development Allowance, Expenditure Incurred, Foreign Currency, Remuneration Paid To Directors, Remuneration Paid To Managing Director, Sales Promotion, Weighted Deduction
-
1996 (8) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Gross Total Income, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... ision was made in so far as section 80-I was concerned. This clearly contra-indicates that sub-section (9) of section 80HH by itself meant that deduction allowed under section 80HH is to be reduced from the gross total income for granting the benefit of section 80J and, for that matter, of section 80-I. It was provided in section 80J itself by later amendment while no such provision was made in section 80-I even though inserted on a later date. The provision of law is, therefore, clear that in so far as the benefit of section 80-I is concerned, it has to be granted on the gross total income and not on the income reduced by the amount allowed under section 80HH. In the result, we find that the Tribunal was not right in holding that deduction under section 80-I is to be allowed only on the balance of the income after deducting the relief under section 80HH from the gross total income and accordingly we answer the said question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
....
|
