|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 382 Records
-
1998 (1) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Competency Of Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... the Assistant Commissioner it is open to the assessee to challenge the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to grant interest. In view of the earlier decision of this court in Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. v. CIT 1980 126 ITR 125, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 160 ITR 961, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the appeal will not be entertained against an order refusing to grant interest under section 214 of the Act. We hold that the appeal filed by the assessee was competent before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as the assessee has challenged not only refusal of interest, but also the entire assessment as such. Since the Tribunal has not considered the matter on the merits of the case, the Tribunal is directed to consider the same. Accordingly, we answer the question of law in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (1) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Total Income, Inclusions In Total Income, HUF, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ng a partner in the same partnership firm nor the income accruing to his minor children on account of their being admitted to the benefits of such partnership firm, can be included in the total income of such person in his individual assessment or in the assessment of the Hindu undivided family. We are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court would squarely apply to the facts of the case and we find there is no amendment in the case of clubbing of the income of the spouse in the hands of other spouse unlike in the case of clubbing of the minor income as we find in clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 64 of the Act. In the absence of any change in the statutory law, we are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Om Prakash s case 1996 217 ITR 785 would apply to the facts of the present tax case. Following the said decision of the Supreme Court, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1998 (1) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment, Firm, Compunding Of Tax, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... 2-93, commencing from April 1, 1992, and ending with March 31, 1993. Inasmuch as the amendment Act had come into force on April 1, 1992, although the said amendment Act has received the assent of the Governor on the June 12, 1992, and publication of the same had been effected on June 16, 1992, it goes without saying that the agricultural income of the assessee-firm for the period between April 1, 1991 and March 31, 1992, has to be necessarily assessed, according to the new provisions brought into being by the amendment Act. This is what exactly the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax has held in his suo motu revision proceedings under section 34 of the principal Act. This sort of a view, as held by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, cannot at all be held to be not reflecting the real position of law. In this view of the matter, the order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax deserves to be upheld. In fine, the tax case (revision) is dismissed. No costs.
-
1998 (1) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Firm, Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... 9 was arrived at by the Tribunal. Since the amount to be disallowed is restricted to Rs. 4,369 by the Tribunal we are of the opinion it is not necessary for us to consider the question whether the interest paid by the firm to the partner was really the interest paid to the Egmore Benefit Society. We are therefore of the view that the issue raised in the second question is purely academic in so far as this tax case is concerned. Therefore we are not answering the second question of law referred to us though we are not confirming the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the merits of the case. Accordingly we return the second question of law without providing an answer to it. Accordingly we answer the questions of law referred to us as under First question of law It is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue Second question of law In view of our answer to the first question it is returned unanswered. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
-
1998 (1) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Borewell ... ... ... ... ..... in CIT v. Popular Borewell Service 1992 194 ITR 12, holding that the assessee would be entitled to investment allowance on the rigs and compressors employed in drilling operations is no longer good law. Since the decision of this court is in direct conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that it is not necessary to refer the matter to the Full Bench to decide the question as the matter is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we hold the earlier decision in CIT v. Popular Borewell Service 1992 194 ITR 12 (Mad), holding that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance in respect of the machinery employed in digging borewells is no longer good law. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the second question is liable to be answered in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, we answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and the second question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1998 (1) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Royalty ... ... ... ... ..... that the assessee had entered into the agreement with the object of improving its business and it is not a case of a new business. Viewing the matter from any angle, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion in holding that the payment made by the assessee under the collaboration agreement should be regarded as revenue expenditure. Following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. s case 1989 177 ITR 377 and Jonas Woodhead and Sons case 1997 224 ITR 342 and the decision of this court in Aquapump Industries case 1996 218 ITR 427, all cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the payment made under the collaboration agreement should be allowed as revenue expenditure. In this view of the matter, we answer the questions of law referred to us in the various tax cases in the affirmative and against the Revenue. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order is to costs.
-
1998 (1) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... In every case, the Income-tax Officer must determine for himself what is the effect and consequence of the law mentioned in the audit note and whether in consequence of the law which has now come to his notice he can reasonably believe that income has escaped assessment . The Appellate Tribunal, after perusal of the audit report, held that the report of the audit involved the interpretation of the law on a disputed point involving application of the decision of the Supreme Court to the facts of the case and we are, therefore, of the view that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment on the basis of the report of the audit party. We, therefore, hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessments in the instant case was not valid. Accordingly, we answer the common question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department, but in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to cost.
-
1998 (1) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital Gains, Goodwill ... ... ... ... ..... the insurance company could not be described as a consideration as a result of the transfer of the capital asset, and that, therefore, the assessee was not liable to be assessed to capital gains in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 received from the insurance company. The principle laid down in the case cited above, has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case, and, therefore, it will not advance the case of either side in this matter. If the facts stated supra are taken into consideration, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to deduction from the sale consideration received in respect of the sale of the business of the cinema theatre as stated above the cost of the goodwill paid by him at the time of its acquisition. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of this case, there would be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (1) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Exemption, Growing Crops, Firm, Partner ... ... ... ... ..... ified in holding that the deduction under section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act is to be allowed in the hands of the assessee who is a partner in the firm which owns agricultural lands? A similar question of law came up for consideration before this court in R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT 1995 214 ITR 76, wherein this court held that the assessee, a partner, is entitled to the exemption by way of reduction under section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of his share in the agricultural lands held by the firm in which the assessee is a partner, while computing the net wealth of the assessee. Following the decision of this court in R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. CWT 1995 214 ITR 76, we answer the question of law as reframed by us in the affirmative and against the Department. Accordingly, we answer both the questions of law referred to us in both the tax cases in the manner indicated above. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (1) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... ed disagreement with any of the views expressed by the Delhi High Court. Some of the abovesaid decisions have been referred to in a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1998 232 ITR 722 1997 VI AD (Delhi) 1072. It was a case of an assessee engaged in the business of building work and extracting minerals so as to be consumed in the process of building activity. It was held that the end-product was the test and inasmuch as the product of such manufacturing activity (i.e., extracting minerals) would not result in production of final goods by the assessee but the product of such activity would be consumed by the assessee in its building work so the assessee would not be a producer but only a consumer. The building activity was held not to be a manufacturing activity. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to hereinabove the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (1) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Total Income, HUF, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ot in his individual capacity but as the karta of the Hindu undivided family, neither the income accruing to his wife on account of her being a partner in the same partnership firm nor the income accruing to his minor children on account of their being admitted to the benefits of such partnership firm, can be included in the total income of such person in his individual assessment or in the assessment of the Hindu undivided family. We are of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Om Prakash s case 1996 217 ITR 785 fully governs the facts of this case and we find no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal hold that the provisions of section 64 of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked to club the wife s share income in the assessee s hands made in his individual capacity is he was a partner is in the representative capacity in the service. Accordingly, we answer the common question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department.
-
1998 (1) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Exemption, Legislative Powers ... ... ... ... ..... 990-91. Since the Tribunal, as already indicated, had not at all applied its mind in the proper perspective in understanding the significance and meaning of clause (b) of section 4 of the Act and misdirected itself in exempting the assessee-temple from tax in respect of the agricultural income for the assessment year 1990-91, the impugned order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. Even the other authorities, viz., the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Mannargudi, and the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Thanjavur, did not approach the issue involved in this case from the correct legal perspective and, therefore, it is, the orders of those authorities also deserve to be set aside. In fine, the tax case (revision) is allowed. The orders of all the tax authorities, inclusive of the Tribunal are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Mannargudi, for a fresh look into the matter, as we have indicated above. No costs.
-
1998 (1) TMI 10 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Validity of notice issued under section 147(a) – True and full disclosure of income - ITO failed to draw an inference that because of the entrustment of the initial manufacturing activity to contractors, the income derived from the industrial undertaking with reference to the backward area could be inflated and to that extent the income has to be estimated for confining the deduction to that profit which could be said to have been derived only from the backward area. Failing to draw that inference, blame cannot be put on the assessee, when at the time of assessment the list of contractors, the quantity of beedies manufactured and the amount paid has been disclosed by the assessee - notice under section 147(a) are quashed
-
1998 (1) TMI 9 - SC ORDER
Search and Seizure - retention of document- Held that authorized officer conducting search to hand over seized documents to Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction to retain beyond 15 days - therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days.
-
1998 (1) TMI 8 - SC ORDER
Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the order of the Income-tax Officer withdrawing the development rebate already allowed for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1972-73 consequent to the conversion of the assessee's proprietary business into a partnership firm - Since the point at issue is covered by the decision of this court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT, we treat this question as a reference and answer it in the affirmative (sic) and in favour of the Revenue
-
1998 (1) TMI 7 - SC ORDER
Interpretation of the Expln. to s. 271(1)(c) - concealed income - it is for the assessee to discharge the onus as contemplated in the said Explanation - in the instant case the onus has not been discharged by assessee - hence High Court was right in concluding that as the difference between the income assessed and the income returned was more than 20 per cent., therefore, the said Explanation became applicable and the ITO was justified in imposing penalty
-
1998 (1) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee's house property was assessed to Wealth Tax in the hands of the HUF in which the assessee was a member. The assessee filed his return of Income by including the income from the said house property. Later, he filed a revised return excluding the income from house property as the same was assessed in the hands of the HUF, which was rejected by AO - held that revision petition of assessee u/s 264 is to be considered afresh by CIT.
-
1998 (1) TMI 5 - SC ORDER
Discretionary Trust - whether on the distribution of the profits amongst the beneficiaries the assessment was to be made under section 161 or whether the trust was to be assessed under section 164 as an association of persons for the reason that it was a discretionary trust - held that income should be assessed in hands of beneficiaries
-
1998 (1) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
High Court rejecting the applications of the Revenue filed under section 256(2) are set aside and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, is directed to refer the questions of law raised by the Revenue for the decision of the High Court and forward the same along with the statement of case and the relevant documents :
-
1998 (1) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
In which assessment year the appellant is liable to be assessed in respect of mesne profits which were awarded in his favour - liability became ascertained only with the order of the trial court on December 22, 1962, and not earlier - Following the mercantile system of accounting, the mesne profits awarded by order dated December 22, 1962, were rightly taxed in the assessment year 1963-64 and it was wholly irrelevant as to when the amount awarded was in fact realised by the assessee
....
|
