|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 444 Records
-
1999 (3) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemption, House Rent Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... he assessee has not actually incurred any expenditure on payment of rent in respect of the residential accommodation occupied by him. In view of the above amendment, even the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cited above are not applicable to assessments for the assessment year 1976-77 and onwards. In the instant case, the controversy pertains to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The admitted position is that the accommodation occupied by the assessee was owned by him and he did not incur any expenditure on payment of rent in respect thereof. In that view of the matter, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of clause (13A) of section 10 of the Act and the amount received by him from his employer as house rent allowance was liable to be included in his income. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 64 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... and Khas Kuya Colliery Co. 1985 156 ITR 206 (Patna). In that case, it was observed that the firm can be registered only if there is an existing partnership and if the firm is not carrying on business, it cannot be a partnership. Here again, we must point out that those observations were made in the context of facts of that case. The assessee-firm which was a firm having the object of mining coal, leased out the colliery and as per the agreement, the entire business was to be controlled by the lessee. The transaction did not involve the lease of commercial assets only, but it was a lease of the entire business. The assessee after executing the lease, completely effaced itself from the control of the colliery and the business of selling coal. It was, therefore, held that the firm was not entitled to registration. In the light of the above discussion, we are inclined to answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The R. C. is accordingly disposed of.
-
1999 (3) TMI 63 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reference, Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... been constituted and came into existence is a pure question of fact on which the decision of the Tribunal is final and no reference to the High Court would lie. The scope of reference jurisdiction under s. 66 of the IT Act, 1922, and s. 256 of IT Act, 1961, is very much limited and in case of dispute about the genuineness of the firm or the trust cannot be reassessed or reappraised by the High Court. The view which we have taken is also very much reinforced by a latest decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Prem Family Private (Specific) Trust vs. CIT (1998) 8 SCC 464. 11. After having considered the overall facts and circumstances and the consistent and concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two appellate authorities and in the background of the legal proposition enunciated hereinabove, we find no merits in this group of 24 applications. They are, therefore, required to be rejected. Consequently, they shall stand rejected. Rule discharged without any order of costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 62 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income, Capital Or Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... the industry did not qualify an industrialist for getting any subsidy. The subsidy was given as help not for the setting up of the industry which was already there but as an assistance after the industry commenced production. The view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court is erroneous. Thus, their Lordships made it clear that whether it is revenue receipt or capital receipt, it is to be seen for which purpose it has been given to assessee ? If it is given for running the day-to-day business, that is a revenue receipt. If it is given to meet the capital cost asset, then it is a capital receipt, The admitted fact in this case is that the incentive has been received by the assessee for payment of the loan, which was taken for expansion of plant and machinery---a capital asset. Therefore, in view of the decision of their Lordships, the receipt is a capital receipt. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (3) TMI 61 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Donation, Charitable Trust, Renewal Of Registration ... ... ... ... ..... of the said Act, the petitioner-trust which is It Panjarapole is obliged to perform statutory duties as and when directed by the courts and in view of the aforesaid facts and the objects of the trust, the matter is required to be remitted back to the respondent-authority for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration and readjudication by setting aside the impugned order of the respondent-authority. Since we are in the second half of March and one of the purposes of certificate under section BOG is to give incentive to the donors more so before the end of the financial year, the respondent authority is directed to rehear and readjudicate the matter, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed without order of costs in view of the sympathetic attitude of the Department. Rule is made absolute, accordingly to the aforesaid extent.
-
1999 (3) TMI 60 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Surtax, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... has defined the word heavy chemical to mean a chemical produced and handled in large lots whereas the word fine chemical is defined to mean a chemical which is produced and handled in relatively small amounts like a perfume . Looking to the above meanings given by the chemical dictionaries, it is clear that heavy chemical is described as heavy chemical on the basis of the tonnage whereas fine chemical is defined on the basis of the smaller quantity. In other words, the parameter of tonnage applies in order to ascertain whether the chemical is a heavy chemical or a fine chemical. The Assessing Officer has applied a different test which normally applies to cases of molecular weight. That test is not correct as indicated by the above meanings given by the dictionaries to heavy chemicals. In the circumstances, the above question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Notice, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... e any reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It has not been shown by the petitioner by any evidence on record as to what was the source of the money, which had been deposited by him during the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Assuming the petitioner has an explanation, he would offer it before the authority and we have no doubt that it shall be considered. As at present, the issue of notice cannot be said to be in derogation of section 147 of the proceedings. Thus, the matter calls for no interference. Mr. Mittal states that in C. M. No. 4673 of 1999, the petitioner has given an explanation with regard to the source of income, etc. This is a matter, which shall be considered by the competent authority. We do not wish to express any opinion lest the interest of the petitioner or the Revenue may be prejudicially affected. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 58 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Voluntary Disclosure Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... he control of the citizen, certain moving space is normally allowed. This is precisely what the petitioner is wanting in the present case. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration it appears that the petitioner was unable to make the deposit on account of reasons beyond her control. The Revenue has suffered no loss as the interest for three months, viz., Rs. 33,000, has been deposited by the petitioner. Still further, it is also clear that a declaration under the scheme could be made on or before December 31, 1997. The tax along with interest could have been deposited on or before March 31, 1998. Any deposit before that should not be considered as being beyond the scheme. In any event, the interest having been paid, the Revenue has suffered no loss. Resultantly, the order passed by the Commissioner on July 27, 1998, a copy of which has been produced as annexure-P-4 with the writ petition, is set aside. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 57 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Income, TDS, Winnings From Lottery ... ... ... ... ..... In that view of the matter and consequent to the position as discussed above, the provisions of this section 194B of the Act are not applicable in the instant case and the petitioner is not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194B of the Act in respect of unsold/unclaimed prize winning tickets. Section 194B imposes an obligation to deduct tax at source at the time of payment and not at the time of credit, unless there is actual payment, either in cash or in kind at the time of making payment the impugned notices are liable to be set aside and quashed, which I do accordingly. It is always open to the Revenue authority to assess the income accrued to a distributor, agent, etc., in respect of unsold/unclaimed lottery tickets in the possession of such organiser/stockist/agent, etc., which is income from business of lottery as discussed hereinabove. In the result the petitions are allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 56 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Appeal, Writ, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... e to move the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Guwahati, for stay of the demand within a period of 15 days from today and in case an application is filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) within the aforesaid period of 15 days, the said Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) will consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of 15 days from the date of filing of such application by the petitioner, The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) will apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case and pass orders on the stay application of the petitioner after hearing the petitioner. Till the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) passes such orders on the application of the petitioner for stay, the demand in dispute before the said Commissioner shall remain stayed. It is made clear that in case no application is filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid period of 15 days as directed above, this stay order shall stand vacated.
-
1999 (3) TMI 55 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Appeal To High Court, Powers Of High Court
-
1999 (3) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ion, is not correct. The Tribunal will have to decide the question of allowability of deduction of secret commission in the light of the Explanation inserted with retrospective effect from April 1, 1962. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the commission claimed to have been paid by the assessee by way of secret commission was an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business within the meaning of section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the Explanation appended thereto. However, having regard to the fact that the Tribunal could not have examined at the time it passed the order the controversy in the light of the Explanation which was inserted in the year 1998 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1962, we remit the matter to the Tribunal to re-examine afresh in the light thereof. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. C. C. expedited.
-
1999 (3) TMI 53 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Technical Know-how ... ... ... ... ..... er dated September, 2, 1957, and not prior to that date. Following the above decision, in CIT v. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd. 1998 231 ITR 849, this court has also held that the liability to pay particular sum accrued only on grant of approval by the Reserve Bank where the agreement was subject to the approval of the Reserve Bank. Following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Non-such Tea Estate Ltd. v. CIT 1975 98 ITR 189 and the decision of this court in CIT v. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd. 1998 231 ITR 849, we are of the clear opinion that the liability to pay royalty in the instant case did not accrue or arise during the accounting year ending December 31, 1979. The liability accrued only on September 30, 1980, when the Government of India granted its approval to the agreement. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 52 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... eleted the requirement of 30 days in furnishing of the return. It is no doubt true that the discretion is left with the assessing authority. But if the action in a particular case is arbitrary that would not make the provision of the Act arbitrary. In an appropriate case, the assessee could challenge the action of the assessing authority where unreasonable time is given for furnishing the return. But normally on that ground the provisions of section 148 cannot be construed as unreasonable. Once the power of Parliament to enact the law with retrospective effect is upheld, orders which are not in conformity with such retrospective law could be rectified under section 154. It is admitted that the provision came into existence on April 1, 1989, and therefore any order which has been passed after April 1, 1989, contrary to the retrospective amendment of law can be rectified by the taxation authorities. No illegality is committed. Petition having no force is accordingly dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 51 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Reference, Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... and. Yet, he cited another decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Purushottamdas 1999 236 ITR 573, to take support that when the Tribunal in its discretion has passed the order and added only Rs. 1 lakh to the income and cancelled the penalty imposed, it is not open for the Revenue to question it under section 256(2) and ask for reference. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the admitted facts and the finding of fact as recorded by the Tribunal, there is nothing before us to show that there was concealment of income so as to attract penalty and the Tribunal in its discretion has only added Rs. 1 lakh on the basis of estimation and exercised its discretion. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded is purely on a question of fact and no question of law arises for consideration. Hence, we do not find any merit in the application for reference. Accordingly, the reference application is rejected.
-
1999 (3) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ntenance, for which, expenditure was required and not merely a willingness on the part of the assessee to transact business with that agent outside India on more than one occasion. The whole object of section 35B is to provide a weighted deduction on expenditure incurred. If the mere continuation of a relationship of principal and agent does not require any expenditure, no deduction can be claimed under this provision. The reasons given by the Tribunal for holding that the assessee is eligible for the weighted deduction are untenable. In the absence of any proof that the assessee had maintained an agency outside India and incurred an expenditure, therefore, the commission paid to the agent abroad on contracts concluded through the assistance of that agent cannot be treated as amount spent on the maintenance of an agency for the purposes of section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Act. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue, and against the assessee.
-
1999 (3) TMI 49 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Fair Market Value, Compulsory Acquisition ... ... ... ... ..... erefore, no case for acquisition was made out. Similarly, the competent authority has failed to consider that 32 per cent. of the shareholding in the vendor-company was owned by the financial institutions and that the whole transaction was supported by a special resolution of the vendor-company requiring 75 per cent. majority for effecting the sale. Similarly, the competent authority failed to consider the effect of the amendment to the Bombay Rent Act with effect from February 1, 1973. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that there was no case for acquisition of the properties. Applying the rent capitalisation method, the fair market value was Rs. 14.44 lakhs whereas the consideration involved in the sale was Rs. 50 lakhs and, therefore, there was no understatement of consideration as held by the competent authority. In view of the above, we do not see any infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly the first appeal stands dismissed with costs. C.C. expedited.
-
1999 (3) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Dividends, Deemed Dividend, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes, Appeal To Supreme Court, Question Of Law
-
1999 (3) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Notice, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes, Strict Construction
-
1999 (3) TMI 46 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Procedure, Writ, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... where the dispute may arise as to on which point there is difference of opinion. Before formulating the point, the Tribunal may draw the attention of the parties to the point to be referred to the Third Member and after hearing the parties the order in accordance with law may be passed. If the questions are not framed or there is any jurisdictional error in not proceeding in accordance with the provisions of section 255(4) the petitioner could move at that stage. Since in the eyes of law there is no order which requires adjudication at this stage, I do not consider it proper to interfere and leave it to the Tribunal to follow the procedure laid down under section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act. Much has been said about the procedure followed by the Vice-President. At this stage, even on that I am not inclined to comment as the matter is yet to be heard by the Third Member because of the apparent difference of opinion. The petition stands disposed of with the above observations.
....
|
