Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 144 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 86
Appeal, Reassessment, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... (Kar). In that case the Assessing Officer had directed levy of interest under section 139(8) and 215 but in reality interest was computed for the first time when reassessment order under sections 147 and 148 of the Act was passed. The High Court held that levy of interest could not be questioned in appeal against the order in the reassessment proceedings. If the assessee wanted to question the levy of interest, appeal should have been filed against the regular assessment. In our view, the legal position has been laid (town in the proper perspective in the said case. The case of the Revenue stands on a better footing in the case at hand, since no appeal was filed earlier in terms of section 246(m) challenging the levy of interest under section 216 of the Act, though an appeal had been filed on some other grounds. These aspects have not been taken note of by the Tribunal. The answer to the question referred is in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2001 (3) TMI 85
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... and has taken the view that no such expenditure could be disallowed under sub-section (3A) of section 37. He further submits so far the expenditure on samples is concerned, the issue is now concluded by the Supreme Court in the case of Eskayef v. CIT 2000 245 ITR 116 wherein their Lordships have taken the view that in the case of expenditure on samples the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 37 is applicable. Considering the submission and aforesaid undisputed facts following the decision of the apex court in the case of Eskayef (2000) 245 ITR 116, we answer the question on medical samples in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far the expenditure on distribution on technical literature is concerned, following our view in the case of Griffen Laboratories Ltd. 2000 244 ITR 68 (Cal), we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference application is accordingly disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 84
Revision, Condition Precedent, Business Expenditure, Firm, Goodwill, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... section 263 of the Income-tax Act. In the present matter, the above facts clearly show that the assessees claimed deduction in respect of the interest amount paid to the trust on the goodwill during the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 whereas under the partnership deed, the goodwill amount was payable by incoming partners and, therefore, no amount was payable by the firm as and by way of interest for the liability of the goodwill and, therefore, the firm was not entitled to claim any deduction in respect of the interest paid to the trust. under the order of the Assessing Officer, the relevant facts have not been examined. The order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The order of the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the circumstances the above question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessees. Accordingly, both the above appeals stand disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 83
Agricultural Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... the goods, services or facilities provided to the agriculturist or a cultivator consist of tools or implements like an electric pump, the assessee-company is certainly entitled to claim depreciation because the value of the asset, viz., the electric pump gets diminished by its use in connection with the services or facilities provided to the cultivator and, consequently such reduction in its value would have to be treated as an expenditure while arriving at the taxable income of the assessee. This is the ratio of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1990 184 ITR 64 as also of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1982 137 ITR 827. We agree with the view expressed by the aforestated judgments. Accordingly, the above question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (3) TMI 82
Business Expenditure, Bonus ... ... ... ... ..... amining as to whether the payment made over and above the statutory maximum made by the employers to the labourers pursuant to an agreement under the Industrial Disputes Act was deductible under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and held that such payment for the purpose of commercial expediency and business or profession is allowable under section 37 of the Act. Following the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that the additional amount in the form of ex gratia payment by the assessee-company to the labourers and staff was expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and profession to keep the labourers satisfied and to buy the industrial peace and to avoid strike and lock out and therefore such expenditure paid in excess of bonus in the nature of ex gratia payment is allowable as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We accordingly answer the reference in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 81
Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... rd to the object of the Income-tax Act, namely, to tax the income, owner is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. The require ment of registration of the sale deed in the context of section 22 is not warranted. In CIT v. Kashiram Ramgopal (Agencies) 1998 231 ITR 10 (Gauhati)---Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1997, the reference was answered in favour of the assessee but we find that the question was not replied in categorical terms. However, in view of the decision in CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd. 1997 226 ITR 625 (SC) where it is held that the registration of documents under the Registration Act is not a must in the context of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, we hold that non-registration of transfer documents is immaterial for the purpose of invoking the provision of section 22 of the Income-tax Act. Hence, we find that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and as such, the appeal is dismissed at the motion stage.
-
2001 (3) TMI 80
Revision, Commissioner, Powers Of, Interpretation OF STATUTES, Retrospective Operation ... ... ... ... ..... x court, in the case of CIT v. Shri Arbufa Mills Ltd. 1998 231 ITR 50, held such Explanation to have retrospective effect. However, the ambiguity, if any, was totally removed by the 1988 amendment where it has included any order passed on or before or after 1st June, 1988 . Hence, relying on the proposition of law laid down in the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. 1998 231 ITR 50 (SC) and CIT v. Mulchand Bagri 1992 108 CTR 206 (Cal), I hold that the Explanation incorporated in section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has its retrospective effect and the impugned notice dated June 22, 1979, issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax is valid and binding upon the parties. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The rule nisi issued on July 2, 1979, is discharged. Interim orders passed earlier are vacated. In the circumstances aforesaid, there would be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy be given to the parties as and when applied for.
-
2001 (3) TMI 79
Depreciation, Buildings ... ... ... ... ..... lace the same by having lost its value fully over a period of time. It is well-settled that there cannot be two owners of the property simultaneously and in the same sense of the term. The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation to the person in whom for the time-being vests the dominion over the building and who is entitled to use it in his own right and is using the same for the purposes of his business or profession. Assigning any different meaning would not sub-serve the legislative intent. In this case there is no dispute that the assessee has put up the structure. It is also a well-known concept that the property may belong to one person and the structure may belong to another person. In view of the above facts and in the light of the Supreme Court decisions, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Income-tax reference is disposed of as above.
-
2001 (3) TMI 78
Rectification Of Mistakes, Mistake Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... ed such can only be reopened by the Tribunal and none else. The Revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal, did not proceed with the reference application and allowed the same to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Having done so, the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer in compliance with the direction of the appellate authority has been accepted by the Revenue and the same cannot be reopened at this stage in the manner it has been attempted. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. Notice bearing No. PA(II)-000-CY- 6086/ CAL/ C-III/I.S.C. relating to the assessment year 1964-65 appearing at page 57 of the writ petition is quashed and set aside. This order of setting aside and/or cancellation of the said impugned notice would not in any way preclude the Revenue authority from taking any other step if they are so entitled to in law. The writ petition is thus disposed of. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There would be no order as to costs in the instant case.
-
2001 (3) TMI 77
Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... said agreement was to let out the portion of the said property to various occupants by giving them additional right of using the furniture and fixtures and other common facilities for which rent was being paid month by month in addition to the security free advance covering the entire cost of the said immovable property. In view of the facts and law discussed above we hold that the income derived from the said property is an income from property and should be assessed as such. In the light of our aforesaid discussion we answer question No. 1, in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In fact there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the assessee and the persons who hired the office accommodation. We answer question No. 2 also in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 3 also, we answer in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Y. R. MEENA J.---I agree.
-
2001 (3) TMI 76
Dividend, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... the Revenue has not controverted these facts referred. In CIT v. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 1985 156 ITR 314, in the concluding paragraph, this court has observed as under Once the dividend income is included in the assessment and assessed, the assessee is entitled to all the benefits flowing from such inclusion under. the relevant provisions of the Act. When the basic test for deduction under section 80M is in whose hands the dividend income is assessed, in that case the assessee is entitled to all the benefits, flowing from such inclusion of dividend income, under the relevant provisions of the Act. Following the proposition laid down by this court in the case of CIT v. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 1985 156 ITR 314, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference so made 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 75
Offence And Prosecution, Mode of Accepting Deposits, Change of Law ... ... ... ... ..... he respondents otherwise than by cheque or bank draft after the omission of section 276DD of the Income-tax Act, and, there fore, the complaint was rightly dismissed by the Magistrate. These two decisions clearly support the contention of the respondents. In these circumstances, I find no grounds for interference under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. Of course, the respondents also contend that this is only a second revision petition under the garb of a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and is also, therefore, not maintainable. But, in view of the findings in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the view that it is not necessary to go into this question. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the right of the income-tax authorities to proceed against the respondents for the imposition of penalty, if any, in accordance with law.
-
2001 (3) TMI 74
Recovery of Tax, Waiver of Interest ... ... ... ... ..... en, according to the assessee, the enforcement of the demand for the payment of tax had been stayed. The Commissioner, in the course of his order, has observed that interest was demanded, immediately after the tax was paid, for the period of delay. The Commissioner while rejecting the prayer for waiver has applied the relevant tests. He has found that the assessee would not suffer any genuine hardship by having to make the payment as he has found that the assessee had earned substantial profits, even though for some years it had incurred loss and that there would be no difficulty in paying the amount of interest. He has also found that the default committed by the assessee could not be said to be due to circumstances beyond its control. The conclusions recorded by the Commissioner are supported by the facts to which he has adverted in the course of his order. I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected W. M. P. is also dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 73
Business Expenditure, Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... mmission was paid to the director as part of his remuneration or whether it was paid for some other services rendered by him. It is not clear whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company was to provide any benefit to the two directors as directors or whether the payment was made by the assessee-company for some other services rendered by the two directors. In this reference, we are concerned with the assessment year 1976-77. In the circumstances, we answer question No. 3 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department, on the footing that the decisions of the Tribunal in Pai Paper and Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Nav Ketan International Films Pvt. Ltd. delivered earlier have been rightly overruled by the Bombay High Court in the aforestated cases reported in Pai Paper and Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1994 207 ITR 410 and Nav Ketan International Films Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1994 209 ITR 976. Accordingly, the reference is disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 72
Estate Duty, Exemption, House Property ... ... ... ... ..... een used for residence. As the factual scenario goes to show the house was kept in readiness for use and in fact was not let out after May 1, 1973. In CWT v. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh 1972 83 ITR 52, this court also had an occasion to consider the significance of the words for residential purposes in section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. Views similar to the one we have noted above were expressed by this court. The use of the house by the assessee has to be exclusive . In this context, exclusiveness does not mean loneliness. It does not require that the assessee should live alone in the house. Use of the house, like possession of the house, has two aspects, namely, actual use without claim to any right and use with the claim to a right to do so. In view of the above position, the Tribunal s view cannot be maintained. The question referred, therefore, is answered in the negative, in favour of the present accountable person and against the Revenue. This reference is disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 71
Assessment, Additions To Income, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... the income of the assessee irrespective of the fact whether some other persons have already submitted the returns in respect of the income and have also been assessed on the basis of declaration submitted by them. We are not concerned with the remedies which the other person may follow. Accepting the assessee s contention would result in the startling consequence of accepting that where a person designedly diverts his profits to other persons to reduce his tax burden, he can escape his actual tax burden by inducing such other persons to suffer taxation on the income so directed voluntarily. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was not justified in directing to delete the additions of Rs. 84,769 and Rs. 22,127 from the income of the assessee-firm which the Tribunal has found to be the income of the assessee-firm and not of the other persons named above. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2001 (3) TMI 70
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Condition Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... as to be noted that on the last date of the assessment year, the requisite number was there in the present case in addition to the fact that for a substantial period of the year that was the position. Substantial compliance was all that was required. In order to qualify for the relief and satisfy the requirements of the provision, the undertaking must have employed ten or more workers substantially during the period for which relief was claimed. There could be no hard and fast rule by which one could determine whether there had been substantial compliance. It is for the authority or the court to so decide based upon the facts before it. A similar view has been expressed by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Harit Synthetic Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 1986 162 ITR 640 and CIT v. Ormerods (I) (P) Ltd. 1989 176 ITR 470 (Bom). The above being the position, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 69
Export, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... on record by the assessee showing that reasons beyond his control existed which prevented him from bring the money into India before March, 1999. Thus conditions requisite of exercise of power by the Commissioner, having been shown to exist, the Commissioner was bound to exercise discretion for extending the period as prayed for by the assessee up to March 31, 1999. On his failure to exercise such power, in the words of Earl Cairns, the court will require it to be so exercised. As a result, the order dated September 17, 1999 (annexure 4), deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Since annexure 5 is solely based on annexure 4, so far as it relate to additions made in pursuance of an order under section 80HHC the same must also fall to ground. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, annexures 4 and 5 are quashed and the respondents are directed to make a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 68
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Finding of Tribunal Vitiated ... ... ... ... ..... r material, or if it is contrary to evidence. Similar is the position if it is perverse or there is no direct nexus or link between the conclusion of fact and the primary fact upon which that conclusion is based. Where the Tribunal acts on partly relevant and partly irrelevant materials, and it is not possible to say to what extent the latter has influenced its mind, the finding is vitiated because of use of irrelevant material That gives rise to a question of law. This position has been succinctly stated by the apex court in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT 1954 26 ITR 736 CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 1973 87 ITR 349. Where the Tribunal misdirects itself in law in basing its conclusions on some evidence ignoring other essential matters on record, a question of law arises (see CIT v. Radha Kishan Nandlal 1975 99 ITR 143 (SC)). The answer to the question, therefore, is in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference application stands disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 67
Loss, Dealer in Shares ... ... ... ... ..... red to non-production of the share broker by the assessee does not disentitle the assessee for claim of loss in a genuine transaction of shares. Considering the aforesaid facts and our view expressed in the case of CIT v. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd. 2000 244 ITR 422 (Cal), we answer question No. 1 whether the finding of the Tribunal is based on material, in the affirmative and whether this finding of the Tribunal is perverse, we answer it in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the second question the issue has been raised whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the finding of the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are based on presumption, we answer in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference application for both the assessees thus stands disposed of accordingly. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on usual undertaking.
|