|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 144 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 46
Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... endent on the rate of depreciation allowable under section 32 of the Act but as per Parts I and II of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short the Rules ). It would not make any difference even if the rate of depreciation is different. Though learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that both the sections are intended to further a particular object and not different objects, we find no substance in it. The two sections are intended to achieve different objectives. It is to be noted that allowance of development rebate under section 33 is hedged with several conditions and even if it is allowed once it can be withdrawn on the happening of certain contingencies. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that both the depreciation and development rebate were allowable on the facts of the case. The answer to the question, therefore, is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Both the references are, accordingly, disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 45
Appeal, Opportunity of Being Heard ... ... ... ... ..... hna, the reasonable request made by the appellant who was present before the Tribunal to adjourn the proceedings to enable his learned advocate to argue the case ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal, more particularly, when the matter has chequered history and determination of complicated questions of law and facts is involved. In our view, fair opportunity of presenting the case was not afforded to the appellant by the Tribunal, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The order dt. 17th Oct., 2000 rendered by the Tribunal in ITA No 1374/Ahd/92 which is impugned in the appeal is set aside. As the impugned order is set aside, all the proceedings before the Tribunal shall revive. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of all the proceedings pending before it on merits and in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 44
Reassessment, Full And True Disclosure ... ... ... ... ..... tax is information about the correct state of law after the earlier assessment was made due to the decision of the Supreme Court. Obviously, this reason is not related to escapement of income from tax by reason of any failure on the part of the assessee to file a return or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. In such events initiation of proceedings for recalling the investment allowance, if held to be wrongfully allowed could take place only on or before 31st March, 1991, that is to say, before the expiry of four years from the end of the asst. yr. 1986-87 that is to say on or before 31st March, 1991. The initiation of proceedings in February, 1997, being beyond the jurisdiction of the AO cannot fructify in any fruitful proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned notice dt. 17th Feb., 1997, and the proceedings, if any, taken subsequent thereto are quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 43
Recovery of Tax, Provisional Attachment, Attachment of Bank Accounts And Stocks ... ... ... ... ..... od exceeding 180 days from the date of seizure unless reasons for the same are recorded by him in writing and unless there is an approval by the Commissioner the question of approaching the Board does not arise, therefore, it could not be said that there was alter native remedy open to the petitioners. Considering the facts of the case and since the proceedings are pending, it will be appropriate that the authority shall pass the orders by releasing the property from attachment on taking bank guarantee from the petitioner for the sum alleged to be due against the petitioner which is likely to be assessed after final assessments The authority shall pass the orders to that effect within a period of three days from the date of communication of the order and on furnishing the bank guarantee the property shall be released by the respondents. However, the proceedings before the assessing authority shall go on and shall be decided in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 42
Investment Allowance, Hotel, Building, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... r) CIT v. Berry s Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 1994 207 ITR 615 (Bom) Fariyas Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1995 211 ITR 390 (Bom) and CIT v. S. P. Jaiswal Estates (P.) Ltd. 1992 196 ITR 179 (Cal) and approved in principle that even if the incidental activity of processing food materials into edible products for service to clients in the restaurant is a necessary adjunct of the hotel business and is ultimate nature of the business of hotel-keeping, it is a trading activity and it cannot be held to be a business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that hotel business is an industrial undertaking to which section 32A applies and the assessee is entitled to investment allowance by treating the hotel building itself as a plant. We, therefore, answer the question referred to this court in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 41
Offence And Prosecution, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the same offence. It is therefore clear from the aforesaid decisions and discussion that simply because an order has been passed by the authority waiving the penalty, the proceedings pending against the petitioner cannot be closed. Apart from that already the prosecution examined six witnesses and the order was passed in 1994 and the petition to discharge has been filed only in 1997. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that when once the court finds that there is a prima facie material to frame charges and after the examination of substantial witnesses, I am of the view that it is not necessary and proper to interfere in the finding given by the court below. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. For the reasons stated above, the revision fails and is dismissed. Considering the fact that the charge-sheet was filed in 1992, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. Consequently, the connected Crl. M. P. No. 1613 of 1999 is also dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 40
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Finding of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... d that the assessee did not require the money. If the assessee did not require the money there was reason for taking the loan on November 6, 1989. Thus, it is clear that the addition of Es. 75,000 which has been made due to loan transaction, is clearly justified. The finding which has been recorded about unexplained income is purely a finding of fact. Simply by the fact that the transaction of Rs. 1 lakh was accepted out of Rs. 1,75,000, it cannot be taken that error has been commuted by addition of Rs. 75,000, since the transactions were of different dates. The finding is not shown to be perverse in any manner. It appears to have been arrived at in a reasonable manner in the exercise of prudence of a reasonable man. Hence, the finding is not assailable in the present appeal and no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this court, so as to warrant admission of the present appeal. Thus, the appeal raises no substantial question of law. The same is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 39
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Refund, Adjustment, Arrears of Tax, Mandatory ... ... ... ... ..... aid action of adjustment in the manner as above. Therefore, same is set aside and I direct the refund of the amount which has been adjusted together with interest at the statutory rate. Therefore, the demand revives and both the parties will be entitled to take steps in accordance with law. As far as declaration mentioned in prayer (a)(iii) is concerned, in my view, the same is premature as on the date of making an application admittedly there was no demand and such demand either wrongfully or illegally stood liquidated and/or was deemed to have been liquidated. In view of this judgment, the aforesaid demand will stand revived on today itself. Therefore, both the parties would be entitled to take steps in accordance with law. No order is passed as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment and order upon their usual undertaking and operative portion of this judgment and order be given to the parties if the same is applied for.
-
2001 (3) TMI 38
Refund, Adjustment, Not Adjustable, Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... which by virtue of law of inheritance or by testamentary succession have gone in the bands of the petitioner, i.e., son. As held supra, neither in it the case of Department nor were efforts made to show that the refund which the petitioner is claiming belongs to his father. On the other bared, it clearly appears that what is being claimed by the petitioner is his awn money out of his individual assessment cases having no connection with the assets of his father. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated june 28, 1999 (annexure P-13), passed by respondent No. I is hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that the Department is always free to recover the outstanding dues standing in the name of the late Dayalji Mulji Bagadia, the father of the petitioner out of any property, movable or immovable belonging to Dayalji Mulji and now devolved on any of his legal representatives including the petitioner. No costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 37
Search And Seizure, Block Assessment, Adjustment of Cash Seized Towards Tax ... ... ... ... ..... excess assets could be adjusted towards any other liability. However, in our opinion, the learned single judge was right in holding that once there is a seizure under section 132, the proceedings as contemplated in Chapter XIV-B would have to follow first. The argument of learned standing counsel assailing this aspect of the judgment of the learned single judge is, therefore, clearly incorrect and must be rejected. Thus, we are in agreement with the learned single judge that the appellants erred in making the adjustment of Rs. 24,25,700 against the tax liability of the respondent for the assessment year 1994-95. We are also in total agreement with the learned single judge that once this adjustment is set aside then the respondent would be entitled to get the advantage of the KVS Scheme which he had tried to rely on. No other point was argued before us. In our opinion, the appeals have no substance for the above mentioned reasons. C.M.P. Nos. 8508 to 8510 of 2000 are closed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 36
Business, Balancing Charge ... ... ... ... ..... the contention of Mr. R. K. Patel for the assessee that the provisions of section 41(2) govern only building, machinery, plant or furniture and that, therefore, other assets cannot be included within the scope of section 41(2) for taxing the difference between the written down value and the actual cost. We also find that in view of the provisions of section 47 of the Act, the transfer will not attract the provisions of section 45 relating to capital gains if the transfer of capital assets is by a company to its wholly owned subsidiary company and the holding company as well as the subsidiary company are Indian companies. In view of the above discussion, our answer to question No. 1 is in the negative to the above extent, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Our answer to question No. 2 is in the affirmative to the above extent, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The references accordingly stand disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 35
Recovery of Tax, Attachment of Immovable Property ... ... ... ... ..... escribed and not to tarry or be dilatory. The rule is not one which can be waived by the defaulter. The rule is not one which provides an option to the defaulter or to the Revenue. All parties are bound by the rule. Any sale of immovable property after the limitation prescribed therein would be clearly illegal and void. A provision which requires the Revenue to act within the period prescribed by law cannot be construed in a manner which would enable the Revenue to act beyond that period unless the Act specifically so provides, especially where, as a result of such inaction on the part of the Revenue, the assessee or the defaulter is entitled to a benefit. As no fresh proclamation can now be issued, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that no new proclamation of sale of this property shall be issued pursuant to the certificate on the basis of which the impugned declaration had been issued, as also a declaration that the attachment also is deemed to have been vacated.
-
2001 (3) TMI 34
Reference, Penalty, Concealment of Income, Levy of Penalty Justified ... ... ... ... ..... income of the assessee. Investigations for the subsequent years were also going on and assessments already completed had been reopened. The Tribunal in fact noticed that the return for the assessment year in question was filed on july 20, 1971, while surrender had already been made in respect of the assessment years 1959-60 to 1966-67. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the Tribunal concluded that there was concealment of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so far as claim of interest is concerned. As the factual position goes to show, the amounts had been accepted to be belonging to the assessee and/or its partners and that is why these amounts were later on introduced in the books as belonging to the assessee or its partners. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the conclusions of the Tribunal are essentially factual giving rise to no question of law. We decline to answer the question referred. The reference is accordingly returned unanswered.
-
2001 (3) TMI 33
Bad Debt, Trading Loss ... ... ... ... ..... the question whether the sale was a realisation sale or whether it was a sale in the course of a business would depend on the facts of each case. That, if the sale was only a winding up sale to close down the business and to realise all the assets then such a sale would constitute a realisation sale and the amount received by the transferor was not liable to be taxed. However, in cases where there was a sale of a particular item of assets for a stated consideration, the loss was allowable as a deduction. As stated above, all the aforestated points need proper evidence to be led by the assessee. In this case, there is no basis disclosed by the assessee. Therefore, the judgment of the Madras High Court reported in CIT v. Pathinen Grama Arya Vysya Bank Ltd. 1977 109 ITR 788, has no application. Whether a loss incurred is a trading loss or capital loss is essentially a question of fact. In the circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. C. C. expedited.
-
2001 (3) TMI 32
Recovery of Tax, Stay, Notice of Demand ... ... ... ... ..... conclusion that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand, it may take recourse to coercive action for which brief reasons may be indicated in the order. (e) We clarify that if the authority concerned complies with the above parameters while passing orders on the stay application, then the authorities on the administrative side of the Department like respondent No. 2 herein need not once again give reasoned order. The above parameters are not exhaustive. They are only recommendatory in nature. Subject to the above, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to dispose of the stay application preferred by the assessee in accordance with law. Consequent upon our setting aside the impugned order, the above garnishee notice is also set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. Issuance of certified copy expedited. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order, duly authenticated by the associate of this court.
-
2001 (3) TMI 31
Depreciation, Rate Of Depreciation, Rigs Mounted On Lorries ... ... ... ... ..... t was not only erroneous, but also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and we affirm the said view taken by the Commissioner and answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The second question is with regard to the allowing of depreciation for the rigs mounted on lorries. The assessee claimed 30 per cent. depreciation and the same was also accepted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Revenue has brought to cur notice the case in CIT v. Popular Borewell Service 1992 194 ITR 12, wherein, this court has held that the rigs and compressors fitted to the motor lorry do not form an integral part of the motor lorry and, therefore, depreciation only to the extent of 1.0 per cent. alone is allowable. The law has already been declared by this court. We, therefore, answer this question in favour of the Revenue to the extent that the assessee is entitled only to the extent of 10 per cent. and not 30 per cent. The questions are answered accordingly.
-
2001 (3) TMI 30
Income From House Property, Corporation Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the amount of relief in question, in the subsequent years and that lacuna has been filled up by the amendment in April, 1985, the benefit for which the assessee was entitled as per law existing on the date of the liability accrued, that cannot be taken away by the subsequent amendment, unless there is an amendment made in the provisions of the Act, to tax the amount of relief which the assessee subsequently got in the litigation on account of tax liability with retrospective effect. In view of these facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We answer question No. 1 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. When we have answered question No. 1 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee, question No. 2 need not be answered and we decline to answer question No. 2. The reference application is accordingly disposed of. All parties are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
2001 (3) TMI 29
Depreciation, Hospital, Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... 154 of the Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were accordingly cancelled by the first appellate authority. Against the above orders, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that the question whether hospital was entitled to rebate at 15 per cent. or 10 per cent. was not free from doubt and hence dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. In I. T. R. No. 48 of 1999-CIT v. Upasana Hospital and Nursing Home 2001 250 ITR 78 (Ker), we have taken the view that the hospital does not come within the meaning of welfare centre . Hence, we are of the view that the furniture in the hospital is entitled to depreciation only at 10 per cent. In the above view of the matter, question No. (i) is answered against the assessee, question No. (ii) is answered in the negative and against the assessee and question No. (iii) is answered in the positive and against the assessee. Income-tax references are disposed of as above.
-
2001 (3) TMI 28
Reference, Gift Tax, Family Arrangement, Deemed Gift ... ... ... ... ..... gements to bring about harmony in a family and to do justice to those various members and avoid in anticipation few disputes which might ruin them all. In S. S. Pillai V. K. S. Pillai, AIR 1972 SC 2069, it was observed that if in the interest of the family, properties and family peace, the close relations settle their dispute amicably, this court (the apex court) will be reluctant to disturb the same. The courts generally lean in favour of the family arrangements. The above being the position, the document in question did not require registration. As was indicated by the apex court in K. V. Narayanaswami Iyer V. K. V. Ramakrishna Iyer, AIR 1965 SC 289, a family arrangement could be arrived at even orally and registration would be required only if it was reduced into writing. Where a document was no more than a memorandum of what had been agreed to the same did not require registration. In view of the above, we find no reason to direct a reference. This petition is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 27
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... f the notice which is the subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 955 of 2001 (see 2001 252 ITR 673 (Bom)). Therefore, the proviso to section 147 has no application to the facts of the present case. Under the Income tax Act, each year is a separate unit. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee that the impugned notice in the present case is a sequel to the notice dated March 14, 2001, which is the subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 955 of 2001 (see 2001 252 ITR 673 (Bom)). As stated above, Writ Petition No. 955 of 2001 (see 2001 252 ITR 673 (Bom)) was in respect of the assessment year 1994-95 whereas the present two writ petitions are seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Hence, there is no merit in the above arguments on behalf of the assessee. Conclusion For the above reasons, both the writ petitions fail. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 943 of 2001 and Writ Petition No. 935 of 2001 stand rejected.
....
|
