Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 110 of 110 Records
-
1974 (8) TMI 10 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, Burden Of Proof, Returned Income Less Than 80 Per Cent ... ... ... ... ..... he Income-tax Officer the profit rate disclosed was on the lower side. Accordingly, after estimating the profit rate the assessee was assessed to tax on a higher amount. This court while considering the question whether failure on the part of the assessee to return its correct income was due to gross or wilful neglect on its part observed that essentially this is a question of fact which had to be decided on relevant considerations pointed out therein. It then pointed out that in that case there were circumstances which indicated that the Income-tax Tribunal having regard to the facts of the case came to the conclusion that the assessee had sufficiently discharged that burden. Neither of the two cases cited by the learned counsel, therefore, help the case of the assessee. In the result we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the department. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. Question answered in the negative.
-
1974 (8) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Orders Passed, Revision By Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... rstly, it was a case of penalty where there was a failure on the part of the assessee to adduce certain evidence which formed an integral part for levying penalty. Consequently, the assessee had submitted written objection asking for personal hearing before the impugned order was passed. In the instant case no such prayer had been made. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that counsel cannot rely on the observations of the said decision in support of his contention. In the premises, we have come to the conclusion that the Tribunal came to the correct decision in this matter. In the aforesaid circumstances, the question referred to this court must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative and by saying that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was no question of non-compliance with section 5(7C) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question is answered in favour of the revenue. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. JANAH J.-I agree.
-
1974 (8) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... reliable but it was also false, then we are of the view that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are attracted. The learned counsel for the assessee also contended that the facts disclosed by the evidence of the three witnesses do not lead to the inference that the amount is a concealed income. On this aspect we have to state that though it is possible for the appellate court to take a different view and come to a different conclusion on these facts, that itself is not enough to interfere with the finding of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. It cannot be said to be a perverse conclusion. Once if it can be said that the inference drawn by the Tribunal is also possible, the mere fact that another inference is either more reasonable or possible, will not warrant this court to hold that the finding of the Tribunal is not correct. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the reference in the affirmative and against the assessee, with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (8) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Expenditure Incurred ... ... ... ... ..... to prove that the failure on its part to return the correct income was not on account of any fraud or wilful or gross neglect on its part arose. The Explanation to section 271(1)(c) not being applicable to the facts of the case, it was for the department to indicate the material on the record on the basis of which a finding that the assessee was guilty of a lapse of the nature enumerated in section 271(1)(c), could be recorded. Admittedly, the department has in this case not relied on any such material. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the assessee in this case was not liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is, accordingly, wholly unnecessary for us to go into the wider question raised by the learned counsel for the revenue. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference which is assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1974 (8) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... . v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1972 85 ITR 599 (SC). But, in this case, apart from the fact that the goodwill had been previously, valued in the balance-sheet at Rs. 5,44,999 and in this particular year it was valued at Re. 1 by the company, no other evidence was adduced by the revenue authorities to suggest that this was done to evade tax liability of the assessee. Incidentally, we may mention that in its order the Tribunal has observed that the valuation put on the goodwill was merely to avoid tax. That is irrelevant, that does not justify the valuation. The approach should be to examine whether there were materials to justify the valuation made of this asset. We are of the opinion that there were materials. In the premises, the first question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee, and, accordingly, the second question does not arise in this case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. JANAH J.--I agree.
-
1974 (8) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Income, High Court To Interfere ... ... ... ... ..... . It was held by the Supreme Court that the reference was incompetent and no question of law arose. As we have noticed, the facts of these two cases were very peculiar. If in any particular case it appears that the actual method followed was defective from the intrinsic defect of the method, then, of course, normally, no question of law would arise, but in the instant case before us the Tribunal had rejected the method of valuation not on any factual dispute but by applying a particular approach to the question of valuation which in our opinion was erroneous. In those circumstances, in view of the amplitude of the question referred to us, we are of the opinion that we are entitled to go into the question whether the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion. In the premises, the question referred to this court is answered in the negative and against the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, each party will pay and bear its own costs. JANAH J.--I agree.
-
1974 (8) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Expenditure Incurred ... ... ... ... ..... the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT 1972 86 ITR 196 (MP), but these decisions dealt with the position of sub-s. (5) of s. 23 as it stood after the amendment in 1956. But for the reasons mentioned before, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal on merits has come to a correct conclusion. In this connection, so far as the scope of s. 35(5) is concerned, we may note the decision in the case of ITO v. T. S. Devinatha Nadar 1968 68 ITR 252 (SC). That case, however, dealt with the situation as to at what point of time the effect of s. 35(5) came into operation. Strictly speaking, the answer to the second question, in view of the answer given to the first question, is not necessary but as the question was argued we have expressed our views thereon, and we hold that in any event the decision of the Tribunal on merits is right. The second question need not be answered. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. JANAH J.--I agree.
-
1974 (8) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation On Leased Assets ... ... ... ... ..... ssessee by reason of having realised the price in excess of the written down value thereof in the year in question and this amount can, by no stretch of imagination, be regarded as being in respect of the loss suffered by the assessee on account of depreciation allowance allowed to it for the earlier years for user of items of machinery in those years. The fact that there is a specific provision in the second proviso to s. 10(2)(vii) for assessing the profits arising out of a sale of certain depreciated assets under certain circumstances is also a pointer in the same direction. In our view, therefore, the second condition that is required to be fulfilled under s. 10(2A) can never be said to have been satisfied and, therefore, the item of Rs. 2,70,593 cannot be brought to tax under the provisions of s. 10(2A) of the Act. In the circumstances, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and against the department. The department will pay the costs of the reference.
-
1974 (8) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Legal Representative, Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, Share Income
-
1974 (8) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Chargeable Profits, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... isite amounts of dividend and to take the unappropriated balance or part thereof to the reserve account. In this case, the same report which had recommended the passing of the account as on the 1st January, 1963, also recommended the declaration of dividend of Rs. 76,00,000. Therefore, these had to be treated as part of one transaction. This was one of the methods permissible by law and by principles of accountancy, which the assessee had adopted, but the purpose of the reserve was earmarked for the purpose of creating a liability intended to be effected more or less simultaneously with the creation of the reserve in that account and having regard to the purpose of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion on this aspect of the matter. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the question referred to this court is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. JANAH J.-I agree.
....
|