|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 492 Records
-
1998 (2) TMI 93 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue, Subsidy, Levy Of Interest ... ... ... ... ..... under the Act and, therefore, no appeal lies under section 246(1) of the Act. We have already referred the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. According to the Tribunal, the application for waiver amounted to admission of liability and, therefore, appeal was not maintainable. But the question of maintainability of appeal arises only when the appeal relates to levy of interest alone. In this case, the assessee denied his liability to pay tax on subsidy and when that is allowed, levy of interest becomes a consequential issue. It has been held in Vittal Reddy v. CIT 1987 165 ITR 673 (AP) that grounds can be taken with reference to interest when appeal raises other grounds and is otherwise maintainable. This case is on all fours with that decision and hence Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 160 ITR 961 (SC) does not apply to this case. Hence, we answer the second question in the negative and against the Revenue. Both the questions answered accordingly.
-
1998 (2) TMI 92 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Valuation, Unquoted Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... res it to be shown as such. What clause (i)(a) does is to remove the said amount from the list of assets for the purpose of rule 1D. It is then that clause (ii)(e), which speaks of liabilities, says that only that amount which is still remaining to be paid shall be treated as a liability on the valuation date. If in the provision for taxation made in the column of liabilities in the balance-sheet, the amount of advance tax already paid is again shown as a liability, it will not be treated as a liability. Having noted the facts as stated by the Tribunal and the question as posed for our opinion, really speaking the question, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, no longer survives for our opinion, and we remand the matter back to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the said judgment, i.e, Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT 1994 207 ITR 1 (SC). The reference stands disposed of. A copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Tribunal.
-
1998 (2) TMI 91 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Evade Tax, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, False Statement, Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... s to be noted that the return in this case had been filed as early as on December 24, 1985, and the petitioner s premises were searched on June 29, 1987. The first assessment order finding evasion of tax and suppression of income in the return had been passed on March 15, 1988, but no complaint was filed at that stage. The complaint had been filed only in January, 1992, after the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which now stands set aside by the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. So, in the light of the earlier rulings, it is only appropriate that the prayer for quashing the proceedings in this case also is granted. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in C. C. No. 12 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, are quashed without prejudice to the right of the Department to file a fresh complaint in case the pending proceedings are decided against the petitioner.
-
1998 (2) TMI 90 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Firm, Unabsorbed Depreciation, Carry Forward ... ... ... ... ..... off in the subsequent years has to go to the firm itself and not to the partners? A similar question was examined by this court in Pearl Woollen Mills v. CIT 1989 179 ITR 368 and CIT v. Mahavir Steel Rolling Mills 1989 179 ITR 377. The view expressed by this court stands affirmed by the Supreme Court in Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT 1991 189 ITR 512. This reference is, therefore, disposed of with answer to the question in the affirmative, i.e., against the Department of Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1998 (2) TMI 89 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rectification, Business Expenditure, Rasoi Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the first instance. The assessing authority could not have taken a view contrary to the one taken in the case of Gheru Lal Bal Chand 1978 111 ITR 134 (P and H), by reference to the decisions of the other High Courts. In view of the fact that the opinion rendered by this court is binding on the functionaries working within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, and once that is so the order passed by the assessing authority by ignoring the opinion of this court is a mistake apparent on the face of the record and thus the Income-tax Officer in our opinion was right in issuing a notice and passing an order of rectification. The Tribunal was not right in coming to the conclusion that the mistake in this case was not apparent on the face of the record in view of the conflicting views of the other High Courts. In view of the above the question referred for the opinion of this court is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 88 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Agricultural Land, Urban Area ... ... ... ... ..... similar controversy was examined by this court in Tuhi Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector 1993 199 ITR 490, wherein it was held that, in the light of the amendment of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2 of the Act by the Finance Act, 1970, and after the insertion of the Explanation below clause (1A) of that section by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1970, agricultural land, situated within the limits of any municipality having a specified population or situated within a specified distance not exceeding eight kilometres from the local limits of such municipality, shall be covered by the amended definition of capital asset . Any income by way of capital gains, arising on the transfer of such agricultural land, shall be subjected to tax. For the reasons recorded in Tuhi Ram s case 1993 199 ITR 490 (P and H), this reference is disposed of with answer to the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
1998 (2) TMI 87 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Exports, Delay, Sale Proceeds, Six Months ... ... ... ... ..... ercise the power for allowing a further period to the assessee if he is satisfied that the assessee was unable to receive in or bring into India the sale proceeds within the period of six months for reasons beyond his control. If he is satisfied about the existence of such a condition he has to exercise the discretion in favour of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid facts I hold that it is not necessary to make any application to the Commissioner before the expiry of the period of six months from the end of the previous year or before the filing of the return. In these circumstances, I set aside the order dated October 3, 1997, passed by the Commissioner and I direct the Commissioner to decide the matter on merits after giving a hearing to the writ petitioner, within two weeks from the date of communication of this order. This writ application is allowed, however, without any costs. All parties to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
1998 (2) TMI 86 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Manufacture Or Production ... ... ... ... ..... on of office machines and apparatus used for data processing which is excluded under item 22 in the list in the Eleventh Schedule and not the activity of producing computations and statements after processing data furnished by various parties, which are fed into the computer as inputs. It is here that the Assessing Officer fell into an error. The position would have been different if the assessee were engaged in the manufacture and production of office machines and apparatus which, within the meaning of the Explanation to item 22 in the list in the Eleventh Schedule which includes data processing, is an excluded item. The assessee-company is engaged only in producing the information required by the customers through data processing and not in the manufacture or production of the office machines and apparatus , which are used for data processing. We, therefore, answer both the questions referred under section 256(1) of the Act in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (2) TMI 85 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... eived is the result of the admission of the minor to the benefits of the partnership, such benefit has necessarily to be included in the total income of the individual whose minor child has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The Tribunal has referred to the judgment of this court in the case of Nripendrakumari Bhandari (Smt) v. CIT 1976 105 ITR 158. That was a case where the minor had made certain deposits though not obliged to do, so, and the interest paid on such deposits was held to be benefit which could not be regarded as a direct result of the minor s admission to the benefits of the partnership. In this case, the admission of the minor was in consideration of the capital contributed by the minor, and that decision is not of any assistance to the assessee. Our answer to the question that has been referred to us, therefore, is in the negative, in favour of the Revenue, and against the assessee. The Revenue shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 500.
-
1998 (2) TMI 84 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Sugar Plant ... ... ... ... ..... it does not hold to be good. No doubt, expenditure was incurred on substantial replacement, but the fact remains that the sugar plant was there and the same plant existed even after replacement and, therefore, it is wrong to say that any new asset of enduring nature has come into existence. Whether or not a new asset has come into existence---this question has to be considered vis-a-vis the integrated sugar plant and not vis-a-vis each integral part of it. When expenditure incurred on technical know-how on consideration of once for all payments was held to be the expenditure as revenue in nature in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. 1989 177 ITR 377 (SC), we see no reason why expenditure incurred on purchasing of new machinery to ensure sound functioning of the sugar mill to replace the old ones, should not be held as revenue expenditure. We, therefore, answer the above referred question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (2) TMI 83 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Delay In Filing Return, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... the return from the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 18 up to the date of actual payment of such tax. Earlier to this amendment, conditions could have been imposed by the assessing authority. But this proviso which has to be applied makes it clear that the liability to pay 12 per cent. per annum will be on the tax due as per the return from the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 18 up to the date of actual payment of tax. Since the due date was extended till March 31, 1983, under section 18 itself, no interest was payable under section 61. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability of interest. Interest levied is, therefore, quashed. Adjustment of the said amount to be given in the tax liability if any and if there is excess amount it may be refunded in accordance with law. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed. Annexures-F to K stand modified in accordance with the directions given above.
-
1998 (2) TMI 82 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Commissioner, Powers Of Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which can thereafter be taken up way of a reference under section 256. The Commissioner of Income-tax at this stage only issued notice under section 263 and for that matter the impugned notice is issued on the petitioner to show cause before him. The petitioner instead of raising these points in this writ petition could very well take up those points before the Commissioner of Income-tax who could pass necessary order thereafter in accordance with law. The Commissioner in his order only gave his tentative reason for his proposal to exercise the power under section 263. The facts enumerated above are matters which can be verified and evaluated by the Commissioner of Income-tax involving the questions of fact as well. As such no injustice is caused by the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case 1 am not inclined to exercise my power under article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 81 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Writ, Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, Public Interest, Litigation, Lawyer, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... udgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 653 of 1997---Pooran Chandra Shukla v. Union of India decided on September 29, 1997. In that case a person who had not made a declaration under the same Scheme, but wanted to make one, challenged some clarification given in the form of questions and answers by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. A Division Bench of this court took the view that the petitioner having not made any declaration cannot be said to be an aggrieved person and the writ petition filed by him was not maintainable. Sri Gupta from the other side contended that this ratio would not apply to the present case because some of the clients, for whose benefit, inter alia, this petition has been filed, have already made declarations depending upon the clarification dated October 3, 1997. Since the petition must fail for other reasons, we do not think it necessary to deal with this controversy. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 80 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Charitable Trust, Property, Trustee, Discretion ... ... ... ... ..... ruction of the trust deed by the apex court is very relevant for the purpose of considering the nature and effect of the document and in our opinion it has to be looked into, and relied upon for the purpose of deciding as to whether the terms of that document are such as to permit a claim being made in terms of section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act for exemption. Learned counsel for the assessee further contended that the emphasis in section 5(1) of the Act is on public purpose and that even if the purpose is social or cultural so long as it is of a public character, exemption can be claimed. We are unable to agree with that submission. The purpose mentioned in that section is public purpose of a charitable or religious nature and not any other purpose. The question that has been referred for our decision is, therefore, required to be and is answered by us in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue is entitled to costs in a sum of Rs. 1,000.
-
1998 (2) TMI 79 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation, Firm, Dissolution, Enhanced Cost ... ... ... ... ..... nly the questions referred to by this court in the judgments referred to above. Once we answer these questions specifically, the answers to the other questions would follow. On the common question referred to us in all these references, we answer that the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation on the assets taken over from the partnership firm at the revalued figure. In other words, the question is answered in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. On the additional question referred to us in I. T. R. Nos. 112 and 113 of 1996, we answer that Explanation 3 to section 43(1) is attracted to the facts of the present case. That means the question is answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference cases are disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1998 (2) TMI 78 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Business Held Under Trust, Estoppel, Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ve up ground No. 2. In our considered opinion, there is no estoppel against law and counsel for the assessee is not permitted to withdraw ground No. 2, the adjudication of which is rather very material and relevant for deciding the issue before us. It is in this backdrop, learned standing counsel urged before us that when ground No. 2 was explicitly given up by counsel for the assessee, the Tribunal was not right in deciding the said ground holding that there was no estoppel against law. It is not pointed out from the records that the assessee ever gave up the claim for exemption under section 11(1). The assessee consistently claimed exemption under section 11, notwithstanding section 13(1)(bb) having been inserted in the Act by amendment. The matter viewed in this light, the statement made by counsel for the assessee is of no significance. We, therefore, answer all the questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The references are, accordingly, disposed of.
-
1998 (2) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reference, Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Revenue Expenditure, Current Repairs, Enduring Nature
-
1998 (2) TMI 76 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reference, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... gly framed on a total misconception of facts and such questions shall never arise for consideration, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We have stated for the sake of emphasis that the prize winning ticket had not been presented and encashed by the assessee. But, the sordid fact is that one Mr. Balchand Krishna Karter of Bombay presented the ticket and encashed the amount. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 6,23,000 allegedly received by the assessee could have been only by the illegal exchange and sale of the lottery ticket. That being so, the tax authorities, inclusive of the Tribunal found that the said income of the assessee was income from other sources and he had been accordingly subjected to tax under the Act. Such being the case, we are unable to comprehend as to how the questions as framed shall ever arose for consideration at all. In this view of the matter, this tax case petition deserves to be dismissed, the same and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Gift Tax, Valuation Of Unquoted Equity Shares, Breakup Value Method ... ... ... ... ..... llate Tribunal to consider the value of the shares on the basis of the decision in CGT v. Venu Srinivasan 1985 156 ITR 679 (Mad), i.e., to determine the value of shares on the basis of the balance-sheet nearer to the date of the gift. Since we are holding that the Tribunal was not correct in taking into account the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1973, for the purpose of valuation of the shares, the appropriate course would be not to render any answer to questions Nos. 3 to 5, but for the final determination of the value of the shares to be made by the Tribunal on the first question. In this view of the matter, we answer the questions of law referred to us as under First question It is answered in the negative and in favour of the Department. Second question It is answered in the affirmative and against the Department. Questions Nos 3 to 5 No answer is provided as the answer to those questions would depend upon the decision to be rendered by the Tribunal on the first question.
-
1998 (2) TMI 74 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation, Business Expenditure, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... welfare fund and the money was paid to the fund to secure to the assessee the benefit in carrying on the business of the assessee and, therefore, the amount paid can be regarded as a labour welfare expenditure and allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Act as the payments were made on the ground of the assessee s business exigencies. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 50,000 as well as Rs. 1,01,485 paid by the assessee cannot be regarded as a business expenditure. Accordingly, we answer the questions of law referred to us as under The first question of law --- In the affirmative and against the assessee. The second question of law --- In the affirmative and against the assessee. The third question of law --- In the affirmative and against the assessee and The fourth question of law --- In the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee would be entitled to costs of Rs. 750.
....
|
