|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 460 Records
-
1997 (1) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Constitutional Validity, Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... in Kumari A. B. Shanthi s case seems to us as being unreasonable, being a judgment passed in utter disregard of the principles of judicial propriety because the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court while deciding Kumari A. B. Shanthi s case had before him a Division Bench judgment of that very Court and he was bound by the ratio of that case. We are in agreement with the law laid down by the aforesaid two decisions of the Madras High Court and the Gujarat High Court in K.R.M.V. Ponnuswamy Nadar Sons case and in Sukhdev Rathi s case, and consider that there is no arbitrariness or discrimination in the provisions of s. 269SS of the Act and, on the same parity we uphold the constitutional validity of s. 269T of the Act because that is only the reverse of borrowing and there is no difference because that also deals with the manipulative devices of the borrower. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the writ applications fail and are dismissed as being without merit.
-
1997 (1) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ut, this submission has no merit, because, unless in the reassessment notice, the relevant allegations are there regarding the abovesaid basic operations, the assessee cannot be expected to traverse this aspect, in his reply to the said notice. In the light of the above feature, and particularly when necessary allegations are not there in the reassessment notice, there is no scope for contending that the assessee has not met the relevant allegations in his reply. It is the duty of the Department, when it chooses to assess a particular income and issues reassessment notice, to make the necessary allegations. But, in the present case, the relevant allegations in the light of the abovesaid Supreme Court observations, are not in the reassessment notice. There is also no finding by any of the authorities on the above aspect. Therefore, the orders of the authorities below cannot stand. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and allow this revision. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Capital, Borrowed Capital, Mercantile, Arrack ... ... ... ... ..... rnment s letters, dated August 2, 1973, and September 11, 1973. In a letter, dated August 12, 1974, the Government quantified the final price on account of which there was difference between the original price and the finally fixed price by the Government. The assessee did not dispute payment of such differential price. The assessee was permitted to pay such a differential price by way of instalments. Inasmuch as the liability was fastened on the assessee for the payment of the excess price during the assessment year under consideration and inasmuch as the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting, it cannot be said that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were incorrect in deleting the differential price payable by the assessee by way of instalments. Accordingly, we see that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 18 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Special Deduction, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... mount of the gross income by the aforesaid amount of expenses and granted exemption of net income of Rs. 1,11,996. The Commissioner of Income-tax upheld the assessment order but the Tribunal agreeing with the assessee s plea allowed exemption on the gross income without deducting the expenses therefrom. Mr. R. P. Sawhney, learned senior counsel, has argued that it is the net income which is exempt from tax in the light of the provision of section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sabarkantha Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT 1993 203 ITR 1027. The Tribunal is directed to refer the following question of law to this court for opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, exemption in respect of income from the purchase and supply of fertilizers by the assessee-society to its members is allowable on the gross profit after deducting proportionate expenses under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act?
-
1997 (1) TMI 17 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Question Of Law, Marriage Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... perused the record of the case. Learned counsel submitted that the question sought for by the petitioner has not been decided by this court in any other petition and there is no judgment of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue. On that premise, he submitted that the question framed by the petitioner deserves to be adjudicated by this court. In our opinion, the question framed by the petitioner is an important question of law which requires to be determined by this court. Therefore, we accept this petition and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, to draw up a statement of case and refer the following question of law to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the accountable person is entitled to get deduction of Rs. 40,000 in respect of marriage expenses of unmarried daughter ? The Tribunal is directed to remit the record of the case of this court at an early date.
-
1997 (1) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Special Remuneration, Pension ... ... ... ... ..... uestion referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessees. In so far is the second question of law is concerned the issue relates to the deduction of the pension paid to one Mrs. Valli Anantharamakrishnan as a business expenditure. Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, submitted that this court in the assessee s own case in the earlier year has considered the issue of deductibility of the allowance paid to Mrs. Valli Anantharamakrishnan and held that the pension paid was not an allow able deduction as a business expenditure on the ground that the pension was paid as a mark of respect to its departed chairman and not on commercial considerations. The above view was followed by another decision in CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd. 1995 214 ITR 399 (Mad). Following the said decisions of this court, we answer the second question also in the affirmative and against the assessee. Accordingly, we answer both the questions of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee.
-
1997 (1) TMI 15 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Transfer To Defraud Revenue, Attachment And Sale, Mala Fide ... ... ... ... ..... paid within two weeks. In view of the stay order, the period of limitation stands further extended. In this light, the plea raised with respect to the expiry of the period of limitation has no force and is rejected. The last plea raised by Shri Mittal is that the property at Chandigarh has been attached and is likely to be sold by auction due to mala fides on the part of the officers of the Income-tax Department. This plea is also to be rejected outright because neither any such plea has been raised in the writ petition nor is there any material on record to show that the proceedings were started by the Income-tax Officer or the Tax Recovery Officer on the basis of mala fides. The charge of mala fides must be established with sufficient material and no presumption can be drawn only on a bare plea. Therefore, this plea is also rejected. In the result, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any force and merit and is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 5,000.
-
1997 (1) TMI 14 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... the order passed by the CIT, Rohtak. It was held that there was no concealment of income. Only higher G.P. rates were applied and additions were made. It will not attract penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The CIT further found that assessee was under a bona fide obligation that no penalty was leviable. The order of the assessing authority was set aside. Similarly, on 13th July, 1993 the Tribunal, Chandigarh had found that there was no defects in the sale, purchase and store of the hardware. That being the position and the penalty having been set aside, the very basis of the criminal prosecution would be lost. These findings knocks the bottom of the prosecution case. 7. In these circumstances, taking note of the subsequent evidence, it must follow that basis of the criminal prosecution had been lost. The judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the revision petitions are allowed and the order of the learned trial Court is restored.
-
1997 (1) TMI 13 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Limitation, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... d under section 73A of the Act. However, the Tribunal upheld this objection. The point which requires consideration by this court is what is the point of time when the proceeding under section 59(a) is deemed to have commenced. In our considered opinion, the following referable question of law arises in this case Whether the period of limitation specified in section 73A commences from the date of issuance of notice under section 59(a) or from the date of service of such notice upon the accountable person and whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that notice issued under section 59(a) is barred by limitation and whether the Tribunal is correct in law in setting aside the order of assessment framed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty ? Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the abovementioned question to this court along with the records.
-
1997 (1) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision, Draft Assessment Order, Direction Of Iac ... ... ... ... ..... me-tax under section 263 of the Act. A similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. M. M. Virwani 1994 207 ITR 255. In view of the foregoing decisions, we hold in the present case that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the Commissioner of Income-tax has got no jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act to interfere with the order passed by the Income-tax Officer as per the direction given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144A of the Act. The Tribunal though dealt with the question relating to jurisdiction did not deal with the appeal on the merits. Inasmuch as we held that the order passed by the Tribunal with regard to the jurisdiction clause under section 263 of the Act is unsustainable, now the matter has to go back to the Tribunal for the purpose of disposing of the appeal on the merits. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Consideration, Transfer, Unquoted Shares, Bonus Shares ... ... ... ... ..... 2A), 47, 49 and 55(2). The cost of acquisition of shares to the assessee for computing the capital gain should be the cost as on January 1, 1954, which the assessee had adopted. This view taken by the Tribunal is supported by an earlier decision of this court in T. C. No. 249 of 1980, judgment dated December 12, 1996 (S. Ram v. CIT 1998 230 ITR 353), wherein this court, by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Shekhawati General Traders Ltd. v. ITO 1971 82 ITR 788 held that the value of the original shares acquired before January 1, 1954, should be taken the value as on January 1, 1954, when the assessee exercised its option. For original shares, we cannot take the average value of both the original shares and the bonus shares. Inasmuch as the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect is in accordance with the earlier decision of this court cited supra, we answer the question referred to us as question No. 1 in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Tax Deducted At Source, Refund, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... ion whether the Legislature has committed an absurdity. Further, in R. v. Skeen and Freeman, Ex. 28 LJMC 91 at page 94. Lord Campbell C. J. said where by the use of clear and unequivocal language, capable of only one construction anything is enacted by the Legislature we must enforce it, although in our own opinion, it may be absurd or mischievous. Accordingly, in our view, while interpreting a taxing statute and the provisions of a fiscal statute the court cannot invoke the principles of purposive construction. We are clearly of the view that the learned trial judge was wrong in holding that the payment of interest has to be given in respect of refund of tax deducted at source at the relevant assessment years. We are unable to appreciate the reasoning given by the learned trial judge and accordingly the order of the learned trial judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. DIBYENDU BHUSAN DUTTA J.---I agree.
-
1997 (1) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reference, Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... ond 25 per cent. or Rs. 10,000, whichever is higher, as the case may be, is invested as laid down by section 11(2) after following the procedure laid down therein. So far as the order relating to question No. (2) is concerned, it is in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra. Therefore, no referable question of law as framed and suggested as question No. (2) would arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In so far as questions Nos. (3) and (4) are concerned, when Rs. 42,243 came out of the accumulated income of Rs. 6,50,000 and Rs. 2,000 also forms part of the same which is exempted under section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, no further answer need be given. Accordingly, questions Nos. (3) and (4) also do not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal as framed and suggested by the Department as questions Nos. (1) to (4). In the result, this tax case petition is dismissed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee, managing agent of mills situated in Pakistan - it appears to us that the transaction of moneys, though they had been made in Calcutta, was for a specific purpose, namely, to be diverted to Pakistan for the management of development of their companies situated in Pakistan and thus entitling the assessee to take the benefit of cl. 5(f) of art. IV of the Indo-Pakistan DTAA - HC has rightly held that clause 9 was not attracted in this case and clause 5(f) would cover the present matter
-
1997 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
U.P. Co-operative Cane Union Federation Ltd. is a co-operative society - members of the Federation are cane unions and the members of these cane unions are individual cane growers - Federation received Rs. 55,098 as five per cent service charges from the supplier of the pumping sets - held that assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), for income from press and income from supply of pumping sets
-
1997 (1) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Tribunal has found that the sources of investments (i.e. that the same were financed from out of the savings from the income of the properties which were left by her mother's first husband) could not be treated as income of the assessee - on a true interpretation of section 69, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that section 69 cannot be invoked in respect of the investments of the assessee and that, therefore, the addition made should be deleted
-
1997 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Preference shares purchased at less than their face value - held that assessee is liable for capital gains on the difference in value between cost price and amount received on redemption of preference shares
-
1997 (1) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Penalty under section 18 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), for failure to file the returns - commissioner gave a partial waiver of penalty - Commissioner had indicated his reasons for reducing penalty instead of granting full waiver - commissioner was justified in granting partial waiver
-
1997 (1) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Cinema Theatre - amount spent on repair of theater - amount spent on extensive repairs is not allowable u/s. 10(2)(v) assessee did not merely repair but totally innovated the theatre - ITO was justified in treating the same as capital expenditure
-
1997 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee a dealer in shares got in exchange of a particular share another companies share which was held by him at the cost of original share - difference between the market value and the cost was treated by revenue as capital gains - held that as a result of their having taken the shares in the second company in exchange for the shares of the first company the assessee had made realisation of the value of the shares of the first company - so it has to be treated as a profit of the assessee
....
|
