|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 492 Records
-
1998 (2) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Powers Of Commissioner, Assessing Officer ... ... ... ... ..... directing the Income-tax Officer to consider the question of status alone. We are therefore of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Since the question of law proceeds on the basis that there was a partial setting aside of the order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) we are of the view that the question should be reframed and the proper question is as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to consider the question of status alone, while considering the appeal preferred before him ? We hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal and accordingly we answer the question of law reframed by us in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income, Cash Credit, Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... Voluntary Disclosure Act, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the assessee had explained the source of the credit entry. We are of the view that the finding of the Tribunal is not based on any material record and therefore, we are not able to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee had explained the nature and source of the credit entry. 15. Mr. Janakiraman, learned counsel for the assessee, pleaded that at least the matter may be remitted to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh. However, we are of the view, the assessment year involved is 1976-77 and two decades have passed since then, and we are not able to entertain the request of the learned counsel for the assessee that the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh. In this view of the matter, we answer the questions of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Extra Shift Allowance, Electrical Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... M. S. Sahadevan 1980 123 ITR 820 (Mad) by a Division Bench of this court, wherein it is pointed out that wherever the machinery is such that inbuilt into it is the electric motor, then it would be electrical machinery. The said view is reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Saran Khandsari Udyog 1993 204 ITR 447 and the Kerala High Court in CIT v. P. Veriah 1995 211 ITR 244. It appears the Central Board of Revenue has already issued Circular No. 1454 on the subject. This should satisfy all concerned. Thus, the Tribunal has committed no mistake in not treating a generator as electrical machinery . In view of the aforesaid decisions, it goes without saying that the question posed for consideration in the instant case has to be necessarily answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue and, consequently, the question is so answered. his tax case is thus disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
-
1998 (2) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... es in item No. C(7) refer to vehicles for personal or family use, vehicles mentioned in item No. D(9) refer to vehicles which are used mainly for hire or reward or for carrying of goods, or for operations connected with agriculture. Vans and three wheelers fall within the latter category as rightly held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also after looking into the registration certificates of the vehicles held that the three wheelers and the vans owned by the assessee had been registered as goods vehicles and were being used as such. The fact that the vans and three wheelers are not specifically mentioned in the schedule, does not disentitle the assessee from claiming depreciation if those vans and three wheelers are capable of being brought under any of the heads mentioned in the schedule. therefore, answer the question that has been referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 500.
-
1998 (2) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Gift Tax, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... e basis of another estimate and, therefore, this court cannot interfere with such an estimate unless it is proved that, the estimate arrived at by the Tribunal was wrong or arbitrary. The Tribunal has taken into account all relevant factors and fixed the amount at Rs. 80,000 for the purpose of education for each of the children. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was correct in deciding that the provision of Rs. 1,60,000 shall be construed as a provision for education and the provision was made to meet the reasonable expenses of education for the minor children of the assessee. Hence, it is not necessary for us to consider the question whether the provision for marriage is not a gift. Accordingly, we answer the questions of law referred to us as under (1) First question of law It is not answered. (2) Second question of law It is answered in the affirmative and against the Department. However, there will be no order as to costs, in the circumstances of the case.
-
1998 (2) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... It was not the case of the assessee in these cases that the stock-in-trade remained the same at the commencement and at the end of the year, The closing stock-in-trade was therefore required to be taken into account, while computing the true profit and loss of the assessee under the scheme. The assessee was not entitled to deduct from the gross receipts the value of those articles, which continued to remain with him at the end of the assessment year and which are to be treated as part and parcel of the closing stock, which was very much available to the assessee for use in the subsequent year for the very same business purpose. To the extent that such articles were utilised in the subsequent years, the assessee would be entitled to claim that expenditure for that year. Our answers to all the questions referred to us are in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue shall be entitled to a cost in a sum of Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand only).
-
1998 (2) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Notice ... ... ... ... ..... ms Nos. 1 and 2 as stated in the impugned notice. I see some force in the said argument and, therefore, I come to the conclusion that the respondent has no right to call upon the petitioner to produce the document mentioned in the impugned notice. But, at the same time, the respondent is at liberty to call upon the petitioner to produce items Nos. 3 and 4 or any other documents, which were not produced earlier. In this view of the said matter, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent is hereby restrained from calling upon the petitioner to produce the documents in items Nos. 1 and 2 in the impugned notice. In other respects, the respondent is entitled to proceed with the enquiry and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. But, however, there will be no order as to costs. In view of the order passed in the main writ petition, no order is necessary in the connected writ miscellaneous petition and the same is closed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... of origin as also a certificate by a reputed inspection agency and such documents are required to be submitted by the exporter for operating a letter of credit that may have been opened by the buyer or as part of the documentation to be sent to the buyer in terms of the contract. Such documentation would be part of the requirements of the contract of sale of specific goods and cannot be regarded as expenditure incurred in furnishing technical information for the promotion of the site of goods. The Tribunal and the authorities below have rightly held that the claim for weighted deduction of the expenditure incurred by the assessee on export inspection agency fee paid in India and expenditure incurred on obtaining certificates of origin in India are inadmissible under section 35B of the Act. We, therefore, answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue shall be entitled to costs of the sum of Rs. 500.
-
1998 (2) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income, Accrual Of Income, Business Expenditure, Contingent Liability ... ... ... ... ..... Our answer to that question is, therefore, in the affirmative against tire assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Counsel sought to refer to the orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of the assessment for the year prior to as also subsequent to the assessment year in question. It is well settled that the answers we are required to give to the questions referred to us are in the context of facts and circumstances of the case in which those questions arose for consideration. The right of the assessee to establish its claim for a larger benefit, having regard to the facts established in relation to the assessment of the other years, are therefore not affected by the order made for a different assessment year. The answer given by us is in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case that were placed before the Tribunal and there is no scope for giving any answer other than the one recorded by us. The Revenue is entitled to cost of Rs. 500 (rupees five hundred only).
-
1998 (2) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... this is not a case of mere information being given to the concerned officer as to the existence of the law. In the order of reassessment also, the reassessment is not on the ground that the applicable legal provision has been omitted from consideration inadvertently by the Assessing Officer. The reassessment is solely based on the audit party s remarks. These remarks contained the opinion of the audit party as to the proper interpretation of the statutory provisions. As pointed out by the apex court, such opinion of the audit party is not information on the basis of which an order of reassessment could be made under section 147(b) of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the Revenue s stand that the reassessment was in accordance with section 147(b) of the Act. We do not find any error in that order. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 500 (rupees five hundred only).
-
1998 (2) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital Gains, Business Expenditure, Law Applicable, Expenditure On Advertisement
-
1998 (2) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accural Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... of accounting and since it was found that the assessee was following the mercantile system during the assessment year in question, the accrued interest due and the penal interest is liable to be included in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee also submitted that the matter should be remitted to the Appellate Tribunal. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the assessee in view of the clear finding of the Appellate Tribunal in the instant case that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting and hence we are of the opinion that the earlier order made in T. C. No. 1102 of 1983, dated February 17, 1998 (Tamil) would apply to the facts Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 2000 242 ITR 122 (Mad) of this case. Hence we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... T (1996) 217 ITR 382, wherein it was held that any interest paid on borrowing, for the purchase of raw materials including the packing materials, is an expenditure incurred in the course of or before the manufacturing or processing of goods and it will not fall under item (viii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B of the Act. It is clear that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was not all expenditure incurred outside India or an expenditure which was incurred in the performance of service rendered outside India or in connection with or incidental to the execution of any contract for the supply of the goods outside India. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this court in Lucas-TVS Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 382. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The revenue shall be entitled to a cost in a sum of Rs. 750 (rupees seven hundred and fifty only).
-
1998 (2) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income-Tax (Tamil Nadu) ... ... ... ... ..... e Act. Revision is also provided under section 34 of the Act. Apart from the same, it is the case of the plaintiff that there is a mistake in the order of assessment. He can get the mistake rectified under section 36 of the Act. On a reading of the entire Act, it is clear that not only in respect of the assessment, but also in respect of the refund, the Agricultural Income Tax Act provides a complete machinery and, therefore, not only under section 62 of the Act, but also by virtue of the scheme of the Act, it is clear that a civil suit is not maintainable. The finding of the lower appellate court that the assessment was made without taking into consideration the relevant material cannot be a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court. Consequently, the substantial question of law is found in favour of the appellant, and the suit is dismissed. The second appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the lower appellate court. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Bonus ... ... ... ... ..... the correctness of the decision of this court was South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 286, and the apex considered by the Supreme Court in the case of court reversing the decision of this court, held that the extra-shift allowance has to be calculated on the basis of the number of days during which the workers had actually worked double shift and triple shift and the said allowance is not required to be restricted to be calculated on the basis of the number of days a particular item of machinery or plant had actually worked double shift or triple shift. In view of the decision of the apex court, the view of the Tribunal that the extra-shift allowances should be restricted to the machinery or plant which actually worked during double shift or triple shift is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, we answer the second question of law also in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of a sum of Rs. 500.
-
1998 (2) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Business Expenditure, Accounting ... ... ... ... ..... ssessee earlier. Therefore, we are of the view that the liability has accrued during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 and the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of the liability for the assessment year 1972-73. Since we are holding on the facts of the case that the liability has accrued during the previous year for the assessment year 1972-73, it is unnecessary to consider the decision relied upon by counsel for the assessee. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 42,512 incurred by the assessee on account of centage and other expenses paid to Southern Railways was laid out for the purposes of business and arose during the assessment year 1972-73 and, accordingly, we answer the first question also in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 750 (rupees seven hundred and fifty only).
-
1998 (2) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Special Deduction, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... tion 80M. Learned counsel also referred to certain other decisions which it is unnecessary to refer to, having regard to the law laid down in the case of H. H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT 1994 205 ITR 433 (SC). We may also notice here the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the apex court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 155 ITR 120 in which the court while upholding the constitutional validity of section 80AA also in Chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, held that section 80AA is merely declaratory of the law as it always was since April 1, 1968. Section 80AB similarly must be held to be declaratory of the law as it always was since April 1, 1981. It has been so held by the apex court in the case of H. H. Sir Rama Varma 1994 205 ITR 433. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand only).
-
1998 (2) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Salary, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ating a willingness to pay any amount towards income-tax liability of the assessee. On the facts of this case, it is clear that the employer had only agreed to pay an allowance which was a sum calculated on the salary agreed to be given and which sum had been rightly included by the assessee as part of the assessee s income. On the materials before the Tribunal, it could not be said that the employer had agreed to pay tax-free salary as the employer bid not agreed to pay any amount in addition to the amount paid as income-tax allowance to meet the tax liability of the assessee, and the employer had not undertaken the responsibility of paying income-tax payable by the assessee on the assessee s salary. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee s income could not be grossed up in the manner done by the Income-tax Officer. Our answer to the question referred to us is therefore in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 15 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Charitable Purposes, Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... xemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee-trust is not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We are satisfied that there are undisputedly no distinguishing features or change in the facts and circumstances of the assessee s case for the years under consideration so as to warrant and justify to record a departure from the view of this court expressed in the assessee s own case for the assessment year 1972-73 (Laxminarain Lath Trust v. CIT 1988 170 ITR 375) wherein both the questions referred to this court were directly and substantially the same as are presently before us in this reference application. Therefore, agreeing with the reasoning and following our own views in Lakshmi Narain Lath Trust v. CIT 1969 73 ITR 402 (Raj), we answer both the referred questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Exemption, Representative Assessee, Minor, Appeal To Appellate Tribunal, Powers Of Tribunal
....
|
