|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 382 Records
-
1998 (1) TMI 62 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... on the explanation is right in law and fact in finding reasonable cause for the delay ? The question that arises from the order of the Appellate Tribunal is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty, even though no finding was recorded that there was sufficient cause for not finalising the accounts of the firms in which the assessee was a partner himself. This gives rise to a question of law and we, therefore, direct the Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question reframed by us for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of a finding that there was sufficient cause in not finalising the accounts of the firms in which the assessee himself was a partner, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The application is, accordingly, allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 61 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Central Government, Educational Purposes ... ... ... ... ..... of conformity but for the fact that orders have already been passed by this court dated January 8, 1998, in W. P. No. 72 of 1998 permitting the assessment proceedings to proceed in accordance with law and subject to the condition that effect shall not be given to the assessment orders except with the leave of courts. Further, until the validity is determined the presumption as to its validity has to be given effect to. Thirdly, the instant case is one relating to assessment for a block period under section 158BC unlike the cases in which interim stay was granted. However, in so far as the fee of the nominated accountants is concerned the same is prima facie excessive and accordingly there shall be interim stay in respect thereof to the extent of 50 per cent. keeping in view that the audit is to be made for the block period comprising April 1, 1986, to Janaury 24, 1997. What would be the appropriate fee can be determined at the time of the final hearing of the writ petition.
-
1998 (1) TMI 60 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Any Person, Income Tax Act, Tax Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... r approval of the Director or as the case may be the Commissioner. It further clarifies that the Income-tax Officer had no power to issue notice for any information to any person when the proceeding is not pending, even after 1995. If any authority below the rank of Commissioner or Director wants any information from any person, he shall seek permission from the Director or Commissioner, in cases of enquiry. It is an admitted fact that no proceeding was pending against the assessee when the notices were issued. In view of the amendment of clause (6) of section 133 of the Act, and the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of D. B. S. Financial Services Private Ltd. v. Suit. M. George, 2nd ITO 1994 207 ITR 1077 we found force in the submission of Dr. Pal. The prayers sought for in the writ petition are allowed and the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act are quashed. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA J.--I agree
-
1998 (1) TMI 59 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Receipt, Chargeable To Tax ... ... ... ... ..... statutory amendments which have been given retrospective effect and according to which the amount shall be taxable as a revenue receipt. It is pointed out that the Finance Act, 1990, has added clause (iiib) in section 28 of the Act, the effect of which is that cash assistance (by whatever name called) received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of the Government of India is to be treated as income chargeable to income-tax under the Act. Sub-clause (vb) has been added in clause (24) of section 2 of the Act, whereby any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiib) of section 28 has been included in the definition of income. These amendments though introduced by the Finance Act, 1990, have been given a retrospective effect with effect from April 1, 1967. The assessment year 1982-83 would be covered by the amendment. In view of the statutory amendments, the question is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (1) TMI 58 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Doctrine Of Merger, Powers Of Commissioner, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... s in the chitty account, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not right in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under section 264 of the Act on the specious reasoning that the order relating to the assessment year 1985-86 was under appeal. No doubt the order relating to the assessment year 1985-86 was in appeal but, there was no order, in so far as the claim of loss in the chitty account is concerned and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax could not have held that no jurisdiction can be exercised under section 264, simply because the assessment order relating to the assessment year 1985-86 was under appeal. For the above reasons, the writ appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated October 31, 1990 (exhibit P-6), passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, is quashed. The case is remanded to the second respondent with a direction that he shall pass a fresh order under section 264 in the revision of the assessee in accordance with law.
-
1998 (1) TMI 57 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Delay In Filing Return, Failure To File Estimate ... ... ... ... ..... two, where the liability to pay interest is not or cannot be disputed but a waiver or reduction is sought for. In the first case, the plea as to non-liability to pay interest may be raised while disputing the assessment in appeal but in the latter case, the remedy of the assessee lies not in appeal but before the assessing authority itself to seek waiver or reduction of interest. In the case at hand, the plea of the assessee, which has also found favour with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, is that the levy of interest was itself bad in law and no interest could have been levied on the assessee. A plea of the nature raised by the assessee in appeal against the order of assessment, was available for consideration under section 246(c) of the Act, whatever be the result on the merits of such plea. That being the position of law, the question is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
1998 (1) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Appeal Before AAC, Appeal To AAC, Delay In Filing Return, Reduction Or Waiver, Waiver Of Interest, Waiver Or Reduction
-
1998 (1) TMI 55 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Bad Debt, Capital Gains, Income From House Property, Sale Proceeds
-
1998 (1) TMI 54 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Import Entitlements ... ... ... ... ..... trol) Order, 1955, made under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, is income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . An amendment has also been effected in the definition of income in clause (24) of section 2 of the interpretation clause of the Act whereby any sum chargeable under clause (iiia) of section 28 is included in the definition of income . These amendments, though inserted by the Finance Act of 1990, have been given a retrospective effect from April 1, 1962. The assessment year 1974-75 is clearly covered by the amendment. Thus whatever might have been the controversy earlier, the same does not survive for decision in view of the amendments referred to hereinabove, according to which the premium earned by the assessee is liable to be taxed as income under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . For the foregoing reasons, the reference is held to have been rendered academic merely and hence is returned unanswered.
-
1998 (1) TMI 53 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Discretionary Power ... ... ... ... ..... d... The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Mysore Fertiliser Co. 1984 145 ITR 91 held that non-payment of tax due to financial difficulties could not be said to be based on any unreasonable view in the facts of the case while dealing with the penalty under section 140A(3) of the Act. In view of the discussion hereinabove, it is difficult for us to hold that exhibit P-6 order in O. P. No. 2671 of 1992 under section 17A(3) of the Act is in consonance with the principles governing the levy of penalty. We therefore set aside exhibit P-6 order. The original orders issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner evidenced by exhibits P-2 and P-3 in O. P. No. 2671 of 1992 are also set aside. The entire matter is remitted to the assessing authority to pass orders afresh in accordance with law and in view of the observations made above. In view of the fact that the entire matter is remitted to the assessing authority as above, Writ Appeal No. 827 of 1991 is dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 52 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Exemptions, Toddy Tapping ... ... ... ... ..... e of Rs. 20,00,000, installed and used for such process, it cannot be an industry and will not amount to an industrial undertaking as required under section 80HHA of the Act. The assessee has not produced any evidence to show that he has purchased or installed any machinery and there is no evidence on record. As per the provisions of the Excise Act referred to supra, the process of tapping and vending of toddy trees will be done by obtaining the lease and the required licence from the Government and no manufacturing process is involved in extracting toddy and vending. In view of the above circumstances, the activity of tapping and vending of toddy will not amount to an industrial operation and is not an industrial undertaking. The establishment of the lessee is not an industrial undertaking and the assessee is not entitled for exemption under section 80HHA of the Act. Accordingly, questions Nos. (2) and (3) are also answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1998 (1) TMI 51 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Salary, Tax Payment By Employer ... ... ... ... ..... ehalf of the assessee, is to be included in the perquisites amounting to salary rendering it liable to tax by being included in income. In the view taken hereinabove, we are fortified by two English decisions i.e, North British Railway Co. v. Scott 1922 8 TC 332 (HL) and Hartland v. Diggines 1926 10 TC 247 (HL). Both these decisions have been followed by two High Courts in India, i.e., the Bombay High Court in CIT v. H. D. Dennis 1982 135 ITR 1 and the Madras High Court in CIT v. I. G. Mackintosh 1975 99 ITR 419. Both the High Courts have held that the income-tax paid by the employer on behalf of the employee is a part of the salary of the assessee and the word salaries would in its natural import comprehend within it tax paid on behalf of the employee. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the view taken in the abovesaid decisions. For the foregoing reasons the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (1) TMI 50 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Connection, Deemed Accrual, Erection And Commissioning ... ... ... ... ..... efore, the judgment is quite different from the present one. In the present case, the foreign company has no share or interest in the management of the Indian company. The foreign company has sold the machinery to the Indian company and for installation of the said machinery and plant supplied technical personnel and technical services until the machinery starts functioning and production. Thereafter, the services of the technical personnel in the Indian company will cease and the Indian company is not responsible to the foreign company. Except to complete the terms of the agreement entered into for the purchase of machinery there is no other interest of the foreign company in the Indian company. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any business connection or the salary and other expenses paid to the technical personnel will amount to the expenses incurred in business connection. Therefore, we answer both the questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1998 (1) TMI 49 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... Code, was perfectly justified in looking into the statements recorded in the course of investigation including the statement recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. The statements will go a long way to decide the claim made by the revision petitioners and the second respondent. The appellate court considered all the aspects and came to the conclusion that the articles should be released to the Income-tax Department. It cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by the appellate court is legally unsustainable or perverse. So, no interference is called for under the revisional powers of this court. In the result, all the revisions are dismissed, confirming the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1996. Direction is issued to the Income-tax Department to complete the enquiry/investigation and the assessment within four months from the date of receipt of the seized articles from the court and pass appropriate orders regarding the gold biscuits and the currency.
-
1998 (1) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Voluntary Disclosure Of Income, Constitutional Validity ... ... ... ... ..... led on January 3, 1998, and then again on January 8, 1998. Thereafter it has been listed today for hearing. By this time hundreds/thousands of persons have made declarations of income taking advantage of the Scheme. According to the rough estimates declarations to the tune of crores of rupees have been made resulting in collection of revenue of Rs. 10,050 crores at 30 per cent. of the declared amount, Entertaining the petition at such a belated stage would create serious anomalies throwing the fate of hundreds/thousands of declarants into suspension. The petitioner, howsoever public-spirited he may be, would have been better advised to lay challenge to the validity of the Scheme either before or soon on its promulgation which having not been done, the petition cannot be entertained at such a belated stage. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a separate petition to the extent of grievances personal to him.
-
1998 (1) TMI 47 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Political Party, Donation ... ... ... ... ..... e have said on the aspect of the gift having connection with the carrying on of the business. In Kuruvilla s case 1970 77 ITR 746, the Supreme Court, in the background of the facts where a medical practitioner, by a deed of gift, made to his son, inter alia, of a hospital and certain adjoining land, claimed exemption under section 5(1)(xiv) of the said Act, held that the gift was not exempt from tax under the said provision. It was held that the clause does not enact that any gift made by a person carrying on any business is exempt from tax, nor does it provide that a gift is exempt from tax merely because the property is used for the purpose for which it was used by the donor. The ratio of this decision also fortifies the conclusion that we have arrived at. In view of what we have said above, the question referred to us by the Tribunal is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (1) TMI 46 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Revision, Doctrine Of Merger, Scientific Research ... ... ... ... ..... in respect of machine No. (i), i.e., Web offset machine, was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, the exercise of power under section 263 by the Commissioner was not excluded. We may mention that Parliament has amended section 263 itself with effect from June 1, 1988, whereby it has been declared that for the purpose of section 263(1) where any order referred to therein and passed by the Assessing Officer has been the subject-matter of any appeal filed on or before or after June 1, 1988, the powers of the Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. The amendment thus clarifies the law and brings the statutory law in conformity with the judicial opinion noticed hereinabove. For the foregoing reasons, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
1998 (1) TMI 45 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cash Compensatory Support, Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the effect whereof is that cash assistance (by whatever name called) received or receivable by any person against exports under any scheme of the Government of India is included in income chargeable to tax under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . This amendment has been given retrospective effect from April 1, 1967, and hence would apply to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 also. In view of this amendment it has to be held that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the amount received as cash compensatory support was not taxable income. For the foregoing reasons, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (1) TMI 44 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Valuation, Unquoted Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... ovident fund and gratuity are admissible. Rule 1D is exhaustive on the subject. (3) Explanation 1 to rule 1D is a perfectly valid piece of delegated legislation and has to be followed. Merely because the valuation date of the assessee and the date with reference to which the balance-sheet of the company is drawn up do not coincide, it cannot be said that rule 1D is not mandatory or that it need not be followed. (4) Sub-clause (a) of clause (i) and sub-clause (e) of clause (ii) have to be read and understood in the manner indicated in this judgment hereinabove. (5) An assessee holding shares in a company whose assets comprise wholly or partly of agricultural land, is not entitled to exclude such shares from his wealth. Following the same, we set aside the order dated March 31, 1989 (annexure C ), as passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter as a whole for disposal in accordance with law and the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1998 (1) TMI 43 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Export Market Allowance, Depreciation, Extra Shift Allowance, Investment Allowance, Weighted Deduction
....
|
