|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 501 Records
-
1996 (9) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Banking Company, Chargeable Profits, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act. In the present case, inasmuch as the sum of Rs. 1,23,000 was not actually transferred during the previous year to the reserve fund, the assessee is not entitled to ask for deduction under rule 1(xi). The assessee s contention that the sum of Rs. 1,23,000, being the amount appropriated for transfer to the reserve fund by the board s resolution which was approved by the general meeting held on April 24, 1976, should be taken into account as if it was actually transferred during the previous year so as to enable the assessee to claim deduction under rule 1(xi) of the First Schedule cannot be accepted. Accordingly, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the deduction of Rs. 1,23,000 is not possible under rule 1(xi) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Diversion By Overriding Title, Molasses Storage Fund, Sugar Industry, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal has not considered the allowability of the claim as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal was concerned only with regard to the question whether there is any diversion of income by overriding title. Therefore, the Tribunal, while deciding the present case, had not applied its mind for allowing the expenditure claimed for constructing the storage tank as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act. In the absence of an order by the Tribunal on this aspect and in the absence of a specific question raised in this regard, it is not possible for us to consider the assessee s submission that the amount incurred for constructing the molasses storage tank should be allowed as a revenue expenditure, since it is laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 2,000 (rupees two thousand only).
-
1996 (9) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
A Partner, Accepting Partition, Assessing Officer, Income Tax, Partner In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... se, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has not conducted an enquiry before arriving at his conclusion as contemplated under section 29 of the Act. A plain reading of the order passed by the Assessing Officer will go to show that he is satisfied with the provisions contained in section 29 of the Act. Therefore, on the facts, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is hit by section 29 of the Act. For the forgeoing reasons, we hold that the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years under consideration, making separate assessments, in the case of each of the coparceners are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax in the assessment years under consideration, and allow these tax case revisions filed by the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... ny one of the items mentioned in the list mentioned in the Fifth Schedule, the assessee would be entitled to higher development rebate. As already pointed out, under item No. 16 in the Fifth Schedule, three materials are mentioned, viz., paper, pulp and newsprint. Therefore, if the assessee s machinery manufactures any one of the abovesaid three items, the assessee would be entitled to higher development rebate. Therefore, looking either on the basis of the facts arising in this case or on the basis of the provisions contained in section 33(1)(b)(B) read with item No. 16 of the Fifth Schedule, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was incorrect in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in granting higher development rebate of 25 per cent., since the assessee is manufacturing pulp, as contemplated in the abovesaid provision. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 37 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... sioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Then the matter was taken up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also affirmed the same. Hence, this reference has been made at the instance of the assessee and the aforesaid question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for answer of this court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is purely a question of fact. The party has tried to justify the purchase from the party at Jabalpur and also claimed transportation charges, but on verification, it is found that no such purchase was made from the Jabalpur party. It appears that the whole transaction was sham. Therefore, the said addition of Rs. 7,51,749 and Rs. 42,650 has been made in the income of the assessee. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly approached the matter and that there is no question of law involved. Hence, we answer the aforesaid question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (9) TMI 36 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Notice Of Reassessment, Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... ature. It is open to the petitioner assessee to appear pursuant to the notice under section 148 and raise all objections either on the point of limitation, if any, which is strongly opposed by Mr. Misra controverting the submission of Mr. Mohanti, or any other point including res judicata. But in our limited writ jurisdiction where issuance of notice under section 148 is challenged, we refrain ourselves from making any observation on the merits lest it may prejudice either party. In view of the recorded reasons, issuance of notice under section 148 is itself not bad in law and we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. With such observation we dispose of the writ application. We make it clear that the income-tax authority will give all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner assessee to raise all his objections and the assessee, without asking for unnecessary adjournments, will co-operate with the Department to proceed with the assessment. DIPAK MISRA J. --- I agree.
-
1996 (9) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Industrial Undertaking, Plant And Machinery, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... Act would become useful only on the satisfaction that the context otherwise requires, creating difficulty in understanding the terms of which definitions are given in section 43 of the Act. In our judgment, resort to the provisions of section 43 of the Act is only permissible as contingent on the requirement of the situation governed by the phrase unless the context otherwise requires . As we have stated hereinbefore, the plain language provides abundantly to know as to what the machinery and plant is to be understood in the context of the statutory provisions of section 32A as well as section 35B. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the submission of learned senior tax counsel. For all the above reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of 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 (9) TMI 34 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Cause Of Action, High Court, Retrospective Effect, Scientific Research, Writ Petition
-
1996 (9) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Market Value, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... similar question came up for consideration before this court in the case of CWT v. K. S. Ranganatha Mudaliar 1984 150 ITR 619, wherein this court held that the valuation on the basis of compensation receivable under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, was justified. Therefore, even though the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had not elaborately stated the reasons for accepting the compensation awarded under the Land Ceiling Act, the Tribunal, which is the highest fact-finding authority, in its order, has given ample reasons for accepting the value in accordance with the compensation awarded under the Land Ceiling Act. Therefore, we see that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in accepting the compensation awarded under the Land Ceiling Act as the value of the land as on the relevant valuation dates. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 32 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Mercantile System, Purchase Tax, Question Of Law, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... the Calcutta High Court, the facts were that the assessee was not under any statutory liability to pay excise duty. Rather it was a contingent liability. The Calcutta High Court held that in respect of such liability, the provision made by the assessee for differential duty was not deductible under section 37. Thus neither of the two decisions relied upon by Shri Sawhney is of any assistance to the case of the petitioner. In Guranditta Mal Shanti Parkash Zira s case 1987 164 ITR 774 (P and H), decided by this court, the assessee was following the mixed system of accounting. This court held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction of the amount deposited in January, 1970, for the year 1970-71 and it was not entitled to the benefit of the same in the subsequent year. That decision also has no bearing on these petitions. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that no question of law arises for determination by this court. Consequently, these petitions are dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Cinema Theatre, Higher Rate, Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ence was also different in the context and content. The question before us is whether the building constructed by the assessee and used as cinema theatre constitutes a plant as a whole. In our judgment, the language of the statutory provision with regard to its application would not be different in its application to the building used as a hotel or even if it is used as a cinema theatre or may be used as a factory in regard to the situation dealing with consideration of the grant of depreciation. The plain language of the section this court has analysed and we see no reason to take any view other than the one taken in I. T. R. No. 155 of 1991 (CIT v. Damodar Corporation 1997 225 ITR 699). For all the above reasons, 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 (9) TMI 30 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Civil Court, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... r of the Government for anything in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act. At the appellate stage it was apparent from the record that defendant No. 2 had taken recourse to section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, in relation to dues pertaining to various assessments of the two beneficiaries of the trust as also the trust. Section 293 creates a bar of suit against the proceedings taken or order made under the Act, and, therefore, the action of defendant No. 2, being in the nature of an order or proceeding under the Act, the suit was not maintainable. It was, therefore, not necessary for the learned single judge to consider the appeal on other issues and the judgment and decree do not call for any interference. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial court as also of the learned single judge are affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we leave the parties to bear their respective costs of this appeal.
-
1996 (9) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Unquoted Shares, Valuation Of Shares, Compulsory Deposit Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... gh Court in Smt. Sunanda Devi Singhania v. CWT 1993 204 ITR 842, holding that the compulsory deposit made under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974, was clearly a deposit and that the Tribunal was right in holding that such a deposit was not an annuity and was an asset. The Calcutta High Court, in a well reasoned judgment, has held that the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the compulsory deposit should be taken into consideration for purposes of computing the net wealth of the assessee. We are entirely in agreement with the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid case. It may also be noticed that as per the submissions made by Mr. Aggarwal, a similar view as taken by the Calcutta High Court was taken by the Full Bench of the Tribunal which has not been challenged by the assessee in the subsequent years. In this view, question No. 2 is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Carry Forward, Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... 988 169 ITR 466 (Cal) Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT 1983 143 ITR 99 (MP) and CIT v. Bankipur Iron Works Ltd. 1980 3 Taxman 484. In CIT v. R. Chandran 1991 191 ITR 328, the Kerala High Court also took the same view. Lastly, the Guwahati High Court has also taken the same view in CIT v. K. C. Bezbarua 1992 195 ITR 321. All these cases were based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kulu Valley Transport Company (P.) Ltd. 1970 77 ITR 518. In view of the foregoing reasons, we see that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in affirming the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in directing the Assessing Officer to process the return filed by the assessee belatedly, but within the time specified under section 139(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and allowing the assessee to carry forward the loss to the subsequent years. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... n estimate on March 15, 1972, though under section 212(3) of the Act it is stated that the estimate should be filed before March 15, 1972, that means that the estimate should be filed before 12 o clock of March 14, 1972. But, actually, the estimate was filed on March 15, 1972, when the office was opened. Hence, the delay is not even of one complete day, but a fraction of a day. Penalty cannot be levied under section 273(b) of the Act if the assessee has shown a reasonable cause for the delay. Since the delay is a fraction of a day and the explanation of the assessee is that it is not aware of the provisions, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1972 83 ITR 26, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty levied under section 273(b) of the Act. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, minimum penalties have been ordered to be leviable. In our judgment, we will have to appreciate the limitations of learned senior counsel in view of the earlier decision of this court and also the position that the Tribunal has resorted to the imposition of minimum penalty. Learned counsel was left with no other alternative except to meet the situation as a consequence of concealment and the natural shyness of the situation as a result of the imposition of minimum penalty. Considering the question from all angles, it is not possible to take any other view in the matter in the situation that it is more established that there is concealment. For the above reasons, we answer both the questions 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 (9) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... ), the Income-tax Officer asked the assessee to produce the accounts. When the accounts were not produced, the Income-tax Officer drew an adverse inference, which adverse inference was confirmed by the High Court. But, in the present case, when both the quantum appeal as well as the appeal filed on rejection of the application in Form No. 11 came up for consideration, the Tribunal accepted the statement of account filed by the assessee and acted upon that basis. Therefore, in the present case, the decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shri Vijayalakshmi Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT 1990 181 ITR 263, would render no assistance. In view of the foregoing reasons we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in directing the assessing authority to grant registration to the firm for the assessment year 1975-76. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Valuation Date, Decree Asset ... ... ... ... ..... quent assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 with no other difference as regards the factual matrix. In the above circumstances a different course is not at all open to us. Before parting with this judgment we must record that when the matter reached before us on September 3, 1996, the assessee was not represented. We found from the print that Shri P. Balachandran had appeared for the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to ask for the reference of the questions. Coincidentally the learned advocate was present in the court room. We requested him, therefore, to assist us amicus curiae. The learned advocate has taken the trouble, for which we express our thanks. For the above reasons, we answer the questions in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 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 (9) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment, Closing Stock ... ... ... ... ..... al situations that float on the surface of the record discussed by us earlier are such that acting in a conservative manner, would be a direction to the Tribunal as an idle exercise. On obvious facts and circumstances the decision is inevitable. Apart therefrom such a direction as has been submitted by learned counsel has also to be understood in the context of time. In this context, we asked a pointed question to learned senior standing counsel as to for whose benefit the Tribunal would decide when the decision is obvious and could not be otherwise in any event. In our judgment, it is not necessary if the things are obviously floating on the surface of the record as discussed by us. For all the above reasons we answer the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of the 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 (9) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Mercantile System, Business Expenditure, Beedi, Leave Wages ... ... ... ... ..... ference in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, while parting with the case, it was observed by this court in M. C. C. No. 28 of 1990 (see 1997 224 ITR 166, 168) It would be open for the assessing authorities to probe into the matter and if it is found that this amount kept reserved under the statutory liability under the M. P. Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, has not been disbursed to the workers towards their wages and the same is found to have been invested in the business, then it would be open to the authorities to proceed under the relevant provisions of law for assessment of the liabilities. Therefore, in case, it is found that the statutory liability has not been disbursed to the workers then the Assessing Officer will be free to take appropriate steps against the assessee in accordance with law. However, for the reasons mentioned above, we answer the aforesaid question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
....
|
