Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 126 of 126 Records
-
1975 (11) TMI 6 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... )(ii) of the Act with a prison-term which may extend to 5 years and with fine. When such fixation of maximum price is in force the market price cannot rise above it It may be anything equal to or less than the maximum price. Any sale at a price above it will not be lawful and, therefore, cannot afford a standard for just equivalent for the commodity. The word just in just equivalent seems to repel consideration of any illegal transaction as its standard. If dealings with racketeers or other anti-social elements in black market are to rule the price of paddy procured for equitable distribution, the object of the Act and the Levy Order-- for securing availability at fair prices --is certain to be defeated. They cannot afford a standard for governmental action or judicial considerations. In the light of the above discussion our answer to the first question is in the negative and as regards the second question in the positive. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1975 (11) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Same Business ... ... ... ... ..... that there was inadequate consideration for the notional transmission of the goodwill, and, indeed, the matter has not been argued on the footing of a deemed gift under s. 4(1) of the G.T. Act, 1958. This is, even if we ignore which would not be proper, the amount in excess of Rs. 26,000 which was allowed to be retained in the partnership business. The position, in my opinion, is quite clear. There was no gift made by the assessee to his son, Girishchandra, by forming the partnership dated 12th November, 1958, as would be liable to the levy of gift-tax under the G.T. Act, 1958, and the question would be required to be answered in favour of the assessee. VIMADALAL J.--I agree and have nothing to add. By the Court --The question referred to us is answered as follows The decision of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 94,658 was not taxable under the provisions of the G.T. Act, 1958, is correct and sustainable in law. The Commissioner to pay the assessee s costs of this reference.
-
1975 (11) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Litigation Expenses, Mesne Profits ... ... ... ... ..... not be proper to permit the assessee to rely on other provisions which do not arise from the question referred to us on the footing that they are the aspects of the question referred to us. In my view, this cannot be considered to be an aspect of the question referred to us and it was open to the assessee to raise this question in any appropriate manner, which has not been done. It may be mentioned only in passing that this contention raised on behalf of the assessee appears to have been rejected by the Supreme Court in CGT v. Gheevarghese 1972 83 ITR 403 and the Kerala High Court in CGT v. Ganapathy Moothan 1972 84 ITR 758. In my view, it is not proper for me to go into this aspect of the matter. VIMADALAL J.--I agree and have nothing to add. By the Court --The questions as reframed are answered as follows Question No. (1)--In the affirmative. Question No. (2)--In the negative in regard to both the sections. The Commissioner must pay the assessee s costs of the, reference.
-
1975 (11) TMI 3 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Loss On Sale, Revenue Loss ... ... ... ... ..... is a further finding that business was secured contemporaneously from the very department. This is not a case where the assessee claims that the loan bonds were purchased for any enduring return. On the other hand, the finding is that there is a boosting up in the business in the year itself. The link which was wanting in the reported decision of this court appears to have been found by the Tribunal as a fact. In these circumstances, there is no warrant for the contention of the learned standing counsel that the purchase of the Government Loan Bonds was in the nature of investment and, therefore, resulted in capital assets, loss wherein could not be admitted as revenue expenditure. We would accordingly hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 27,420 sustained by the assessee on the sale of Government Loan Bonds was a revenue loss. We make no order as to costs, because the assessee went unrepresented at the time of hearing. DAS J.-I agree.
-
1975 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Agricultural income in Pakistan was assessed to agricultural Income-Tax in Pakistan separately in each member's hands - Tribunal was right in holding that section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, had no application - held that on the facts appearing from the order of the Tribunal the onus was upon the department to prove that the income in question belonged to the Hindu undivided family - Appeals allowed
-
1975 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Section 10(5A) - held that in enacting sub-section (5A) the legislature was concerned only with providing a head under which the receipt which has been deemed to be income could be brought to tax - held that the compensation paid for the termination of a managing agency business is a payment in relation to the said business and, therefore, the previous year relevant to that receipt would be the same as the previous year for the managing agency business itself
....
|