|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 437 Records
-
1997 (3) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reference, Question Of Law, Indirect Remuneration, Distribution Rights Of Picture ... ... ... ... ..... amount became due even on the date of signing of the agreement has to be decided on the construction of the lease agreements. Accordingly, we are of the view that a question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a consolidated statement of case and refer the common question of law which is set out as question No. 2 for the assessment year 1986-87 for our opinion. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to enclose the lease agreement relating to the picture Allari Bullodu and similar agreement for the other picture Athanekanta Ghanudu along with the statement of case. Accordingly, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case with reference to the first question for both the assessment years. The second question for the assessment year 1985-86 is rejected and the second question for the assessment year 1986-87 is directed to be referred. The petitions are ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Payments In Cash ... ... ... ... ..... o account the trading practice and need for keeping cash and found that the identity of the payee was established and genuineness of the payee was successfully established and issue of cheque would have delayed the transaction. Considering all these materials on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was not practicable to accept the payment by cheque. We are of the view that the finding arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal is a finding of fact and since the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion on the materials available on record, we are of the opinion that no referable question arose out of its order. Since we have held that the payments made by the assessee is not liable to be disallowed while computing the business income, on the facts of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the applicability of rule 6DD(j) of the Rules. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Costs of the reference is Rs. 500.
-
1997 (3) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Charitable Trust, Nature Of Trust ... ... ... ... ..... ings. All the issues are left open for consideration by the assessing authorities and the petitioner will also be at liberty to place all their objections before the assessing authorities. The assessing authorities shall give a fresh opportunity to the petitioners so as to enable them to put forth all their objections at the appropriate hearing, consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Subject to this, Writ Petitions Nos. 1576 and 1577 of 1987, 1509 of 1989 and 16230 of 1989 are dismissed. For the reasons stated in paras. 4 to 6 Writ Petitions Nos. 4154 to 4156 of 1991 are allowed. The assessment orders dated March 25, 1991, for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 are quashed. The cases are remitted to the Wealth-tax Officer to consider them along with the notices issued for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Capital Employed ... ... ... ... ..... the appeal proceeded on the basis that the assessee had no opening capital as on the first day of the computation period and the question referred to us also proceeded on the basis that there was no opening capital on the first day of the computation period. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is not possible for this court to entertain the request of learned counsel for the assessee that the Appellate Tribunal should be directed to determine the amount of capital employed as on the first day of the computation period. Since we have already held that the view of the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 80J of the Act notwithstanding the fact that there was no opening capital as on the first day of the computation period is plainly not sustainable in law, we have to answer the question referred to us in the negative. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Special Deduction, Carry Forward And Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... s entitled to carry forward the deduction under section 80HHC available for the earlier years. The Tribunal also rejected the reference application filed by the Revenue on the ground that its decision is based on a decision of this court in J.K.K. Angappan v. ITO 1974 94 ITR 397. Though the Appellate Tribunal has come to the conclusion on the basis of the decision of this court in J.K.K. Angappan s case 1974 94 ITR 397 we are of the view that the question involves interpretation of section 80VVA and section 80HHC of the Act and the right of the assessee to carry forward the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, after the deletion of section 80VVA of the Act by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1988. We are of the opinion that a question of law does arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the question set out in paragraph 1 above. The petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income From House Property, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ity. In CIT v. Central Bank Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd. 1993 203 ITR 666, the Bombay High Court, held that where an overdraft was obtained with a bank on the security of the house property by creating a charge on it for the payment of estate duty, the interest payable on such loan, is not deductible under section 24(1)(iv) of the Act, while computing the income from the property. In the present case, assuming there is a charge, the charge was created by the assessee voluntarily. It was not created or thrust upon the assessee either by operation of law or by a decree of a court or by the act of his predecessor-in-title. Therefore, we consider that the Tribunal was correct in saying that in the present case, there is neither a charge nor the charge was created involuntarily and, therefore, interest payable on such charge is not deductible under section 24(1)(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ntinued to be with the assessee and hence, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no gift involved in the transaction. is not open to the Revenue to ignore a part of the agreement and rely upon the result or consequence that may arise from such a sham agreement. The stand of the sons of the assessee was that, after the death of their father, the money which was held by them as a loan became their property by the operation of law. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to treat every mistaken payment as if there was a gift element involved in the transfer of the money. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion in holding that the money was transferred under a sham document and it should also be ignored. We are of the view that the said finding of the Tribunal is a finding arrived at on the facts of the case and no referable question arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this tax case petition is liable to be rejected and it is rejected. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Mixed Question, Liquor, Sales Promotion, Additional Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... pinion that the second question as framed and suggested by the Revenue does arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. In so far as the third question is concerned, we are of the opinion that the third question also arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, even though Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the assessee, urged that the third question does not arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer questions of law Nos. 2 and 3 set out in paragraph 1. The Appellate Tribunal is also directed to enclose along with the statement of the case the copies of paper books stated to have been filed before the Appellate Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, we reject the petition in so far as question No. 1 is concerned but direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions of law Nos. 2 and 3. The petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Reference, Net Wealth, Misappropriation ... ... ... ... ..... No. 83 of 1984, dated December 23, 1985, a copy of the said judgment was not placed before us. Further, there is also reference to the properties acquired in the name of the mother of the assessee in the petitions filed and that fact was also placed before the Appellate Tribunal only and no enquiry was made either by the Assessing Officer or by the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to the properties standing in the name of the mother of the assessee. The finding is clear that the Department has not established that the embezzled funds were retained by the assessee. There is no material to indicate that there was any asset, available with the assessee on the relevant dates of valuation. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the amounts alleged to have been embezzled are not includible in the hands of the assessee is purely a finding on fact and no question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, we reject the tax case petitions. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Guarantee Commission, Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... ved should be assessed under the head Business . Following the decision of this court rendered in the assessee s own case, we answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In so far as the second question is concerned, the point that arises is whether the gross dividend income should be brought to tax or the net dividend after deduction of tax deducted at source from abroad should be brought to tax. This court in A. F. W. Low v. CIT 1995 211 ITR 213, has held that only the gross dividend income that should be brought to tax. Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, fairly concedes that the above decision would fully apply to the facts of the present case. Hence, the view of the Appellate Tribunal that the net dividend should be brought to tax is not sustainable in law. Following the decision in A. F. W. Low v. CIT 1995 211 ITR 213 (Mad), we answer the second question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Minor, Benefits Of Partnership, No Income ... ... ... ... ..... tated that this court in the case of CIT v. P. Alwarsamy 1995 211 ITR 353 has held that the income arising to the minor sons of the assessee as a result of their admission to the benefit of partnership in a firm is includible in the total income of the assessee after the amendment of section 64(1)(iii) of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessee had no income of his own from any source whatsoever. The amendment was made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, with effect from April 1, 1976. The tax case relates to the assessment year 1982-83 and the amendment would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Mr. R. Janakiraman, learned counsel for the assessee, does not dispute the position that the income of the minor son who is admitted to the benefits of the partnership is liable to be included in the hands of the assessee. Following the above cited decision, we answer the question of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Investment Allowance, Actual Cost, Subsidy, Undisclosed Income, Suppression Of Stock
-
1997 (3) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... this property. This property was also under the scrutiny of the Income-tax Officer. The property was treated as belonging to the assessee on her voluntary admission. This admission was made as a measure of compromise subject to the condition that penalty will not be levied. Admittedly, the property was originally purchased in the name of the accountant, who in turn sold the same to the husband of the assessee. Since, the assessee admitted that the purchase money belongs to her, the Department came to the conclusion that the property belongs to her. Inasmuch as both the properties and the sale of a property was disclosed to the Department, it cannot be said that there is any concealment with regard to capital gains. In view of this factual position, we consider that the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 25,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
HUF, Coparcenary, Hotchpot, Individual Transaction ... ... ... ... ..... the Hindu Mithakshara family are mentioned. Therefore, there is no justification at all for the Commissioner invoking section 34 and seeking to resort to the abovesaid clubbing. Further we must also point out that there is a confused thinking on the part of the Commissioner. This is evident from the passage extracted above from the impugned order. He proceeds in the said passage as if the assessee in each of these two sets of cases is having two different status, one as an individual and another as a Hindu undivided family. Actually speaking apart from having a status of an individual he is also a coparcener of the Hindu undivided family in question and the said family alone is given the status of the Hindu undivided family under the Act. So, it cannot be said that the assessee in each of the two sets of cases is having two different status. The net result is all these revision petitions are allowed. The impugned orders in both the two sets of cases are set aside. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Deferred Interest, New Unit, Money Borrowed ... ... ... ... ..... ation cannot be included as part of the cost of the asset either for claiming depreciation or for claiming deduction under section 80J of the Act. Hence, on a different reasoning arrived at by us the view of the Appellate Tribunal that the interest paid in connection with the acquisition of an asset cannot be included as part of the actual cost of the asset is justified and is perfectly in order. Hence, it is not necessary for us to go into the question that the decision of this court in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 211 would apply to the facts of this case. Since on the basis of Explanation 8 to section 43(1) of the Act, which is admittedly applicable to the facts of the case, the interest paid cannot be added as part of the cost of the assets, the question referred to us is liable to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Bonus, Depreciation, Investment Allowance, Revenue Expenditure, Subsidy
-
1997 (3) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Bonus, Incentive Bonus ... ... ... ... ..... the notice of this court a decision of this court in CIT v. Sivanandha Mills Ltd. 1985 156 ITR 629, wherein this court has held that the Payment of Bonus Act has no application to incentive bonus or attendance bonus or customary bonus and they are not bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act. Once it is not paid under the Payment of Bonus Act, the allowability of the expenditure has to be determined with reference to the provisions of section 37 of the Act. This court, therefore, held that the amount paid as incentive bonus is allowable under section 37 of the Act. The above view rendered in Sivanandha Mills Ltd. s case 1985 156 ITR 629(Mad), was followed in T. C. No. 1185 of 1985, dated March 4, 1997. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the incentive bonus paid to the employees is allowable under section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 20 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Notice, Transfer Of Assets ... ... ... ... ..... t is a nullity, is academic since the widow of the deceased has already participated in the proceedings, this legal issue need not be decided in the present case. However, the very fact that the widow of the deceased-assessee has participated in the proceedings, the defect, if any, stands automatically cured. Hence, this question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. With regard to the second question as to whether the income of Smt. Kaushalyabai, the spouse of the assessee, should be includible in the income of the deceased or not, we have examined the finding of the Tribunal. We are of the opinion that on the basis of the material placed on record, the Tribunal has found the income of the widow to be includible in the income of the assessee. There is no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Tribunal. Hence, this question is also answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
-
1997 (3) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... owed as weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act. Admittedly, the expenses incurred by the assessee do not relate to the export marketing, and in the absence of any proof that the expenditure was incurred with reference to any of the items found in section 35B of the Act, it is not possible for the assessee to claim weighted deduction in respect of manufacturing expenses. Hence, we reject the contention of the assessee that the assessee would be entitled to claim weighted deduction even in respect of manufacturing expenditure as well. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the assessee is not entitled to weighted deduction in respect of railway freight air freight, insurance, exchange fluctuation, interest and rent and lighting for the assessment years in question. Therefore, we answer the common question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Commission ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal, In the present case, for the assessment year 1979-80 towards the commission payment of Rs. 6,05,336, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disallowed a sum of Rs. 40,000 and the Tribunal has accepted the same. In each year what would be the expenditure incurred for commission payment depends upon the facts arising in that year. Considering the various facts as stated in the order, the Tribunal has accepted the disallowance of Rs. 40,000 is made by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) as reasonable. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of facts arising in the assessment year under consideration. Since, no change of circumstance was shown to us to deviate from the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, which was based upon the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we do not want to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
....
|
