|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 136 of 136 Records
-
1985 (6) TMI 16 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Profits Chargeable To Tax ... ... ... ... ..... been made, it could not be said that the assessee had got any amount against the loss. In that view of the matter, we have not gone into the other question as to whether the Revenue has been able to discharge the burden which lay heavily on it to satisfy that the amount which has been paid, if any, at all to the assessee is against the loss of any particular year. As a matter of fact, nothing has been paid to him in consideration of his forgoing of his share in the capital assets of the firm. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the Tribunal has committed any error of law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in adding Rs. 27,645 to the income of the assessee. The result is that we answer question No. 1 referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As stated above, question No. 2 was not pressed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there should be no order as to costs in this reference.
-
1985 (6) TMI 15 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... Act, 1965. The situation in the latter case is for staying the enforcement and giving time for satisfying the statutory requirement which otherwise would result in the assessee exposing himself to the liquidation of his assets or facing coercive processes. In the ultimate analysis, it is for the assessee to decide as to how best he can keep his trade going on and protect the business assets. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the income-tax authorities, and for that matter, the Tribunal, were clearly in error of law in holding that these expenses are not admissible expenses since, in our opinion, the authorities below have, with respect, not properly appreciated the full import and width of the words for the purpose of business . In that view of the matter, we must accept this reference and answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner shall pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1985 (6) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Gift Tax, Unquoted Shares ... ... ... ... ..... 0, expressed the broad principles which should govern the determination of the value for the purpose of the Gift-tax Act. In the light of the foregoing discussions, we are inclined to hold that the Appellate Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeal (annexure D ) and should have restored the order of the Gift-tax Officer dated November 30, 1973 (annexure A ), arriving at the value per share at Rs. 40.25 in accordance with rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules and ought not to have valued it at Rs. 30 per share arbitrarily. The result, therefore, is that we answer question No. 6 referred to in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In this view, we decline to answer questions Nos. 1 to 5 as it is felt not necessary in view of our answer to question No. 6 which would cover the entire matter. A copy of the judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1985 (6) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... was no statutory liability of the assessee to make any provision for gratuity in the year involved. On this ground, the decision of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was sought to be justified before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not specifically dealt with this contention. Where the liability on account of gratuity is statutory, a provision for the same can be claimed and allowed as a deduction. This has been decided by this court in CIT v. Eastern Spinning Wills Ltd. 1980 126 ITR 686. But the said decision will apply in an assessment year when the statute is in force. This is not the case before us. For the above reasons, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue holding that the said amount of Rs. 80,000 was not an allowable deduction in the assessment year involved but may be allowed as a deduction in the assessment year in which the statute came into force. There will be no order as to costs. G. N. RAY J.-I agree.
-
1985 (6) TMI 12 - PATNA HIGH COURT
False Statement In Verification, Offence, Prosecution And Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. In the result, all the applications are accordingly dismissed. But, direct that the sentence of six months imposed upon the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 544 of 1980 will run concurrent with the sentence in other cases under section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
-
1985 (6) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Limitation, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... D) dated February 18, 1976, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, to the extent it relates to the appeal of the petitioners herein and the counter-appeal of the Department, is set aside and quashed. The proceedings are sent back to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which will now, after notice to all the parties and after giving opportunity to them all rehear both the aforesaid appeals, inter alia, in the light of the Division Bench ruling of this court in Manubhai Sheth s case 1981 128 ITR 87 (Bom). It, however, needs to be observed that the finding that the land here was agricultural land is a pure finding of fact and stands undisturbed and will not be reopened. However, the question whether the said agricultural land was at or near about the relevant time used for agricultural purposes (and on which question there is no finding at all) should be gone into, considered and decided. Rule is made absolute in terms aforesaid but, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (6) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... which, if a proper discount factor is applied, the Revenue may not find itself in a more advantageous position but having regard to the legal position which has been laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that in the absence of a proper exercise having been done, we should decline to answer the questions following the course adopted by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. P. Ltd. 1970 78 ITR 474. We hope and recommend to the Tribunal that it will complete this exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Tribunal in the light of the material which has been already collected and the further material, if the parties want to adduce, and in the light of what we have stated hereinabove. The result is that we decline to answer both the questions in both these references, and leave them to the Tribunal to adjust accordingly, with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute in civil application with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (6) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Royalties From Foreign Enterprises, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... Board seeks to put the clock back and is a step backward at a time when the need is for forward thrust and movement. Even if one were to assume the view taken by the Board to be a remotely plausible one, strong leaning and inclination and one fully in consonance with the national objectives (one of which is to earn foreign exchange as fast and as much as possible) should, in a case as the instant one, be to encourage Indian companies and entrepreneurs going ahead with undertaking foreign enterprises which bring to our country foreign exchange it so desperately needs at this juncture in its economic and industrial development. Hence order This petition thus succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated February 17, 1981 (exhibit G), is set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to approve the agreement (exhibit B) under section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Rule is made absolute in terms aforesaid but, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (6) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Held For Personal Use, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... they are held for personal use. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the test laid down in Chandra Kumar Singh Kasliwal v. Addl. CWT 1980 122 ITR 151 (MP), is that there should be material to indicate that the assessee comes from a class of persons where the use of these articles is normal and it has further to be established that they are used regularly. In fact the decision in Chandra Kumar Singh Kasliwal v. Addl. CWT 1980 122 ITR 151, turned on the peculiar facts of that case, The language used in section 2(14)(ii) of the Act only requires that the things should be such which are held for personal use and, in that context, in our opinion, question of law does arise. The application is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the Tribunal should state the case for answering the question quoted in para.1 of this order. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs so far as these proceedings are concerned.
-
1985 (6) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... count. He has contended that the lapse on the part of the executrix cannot validate the alleged distribution of the income of the estate to the residuary legatee before administration of the estate fully. After considering the respective submissions, it appears to us that the Tribunal has taken a correct view. It has been found as a fact by the Tribunal that as admittedly estate duty in respect of the estate remained unpaid and the estate, therefore, had not been fully administered, the extent of residuary legatee could not be ascertained and no part of the income from the estate could be distributed to the residuary legatee. In our view, it is immaterial if the executrix herself is the residuary legatee and as such is ultimately entitled to the remaining income of the estate after the same is fully administered. In the result, the reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (6) TMI 6 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Financial Year, Income Tax, Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... such, the impugned order imposing interest on the petitioner from March 1, 1970, to March 31, 1972, must be declared to be invalid, void and without jurisdiction for the reasons set forth above and on the authorities referred to above. In the result, we hold that the petitioner is liable to pay simple interest at 6 per centum per annum on the amount of agricultural Income-tax as finally assessed from the 1st day of January, 1970, to February 28, 1970, only. The impugned order of assessment and demand of interest beyond February 28, 1970, is declared invalid. The impugned order marked annexures A and B are quashed. However, the petitioner is liable to pay interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum from January 1, 1970, to February 28, 1970. Accordingly, we direct that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Assam at Gauhati, to assess the interest as directed. In the result, the petition is accepted to the extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (6) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... inion of the Central Board of Revenue regarding the correct valuation of securities for purposes of estate duty, expressed in an appeal preferred by the accountable person, is information within the meaning of section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act. In the present case, as we have already pointed out, the said instruction No. 771 of 1974 does not represent the decision of the Central Board of Direct Taxes on any appeal or other like proceedings but merely represents an opinion of the Central Board. In these circumstances, it is clear that there was, in the present case, no information on the basis of which a notice of reassessment could be given under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act and the said notice dated September 18, 1978, is clearly bad in law. The learned trial judge was, in our view, with respect, justified in taking this view for the reasons which we have already indicated above. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (6) TMI 4 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ue was discharged, the burden had not shifted to the assessee. For this reason alone, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner s order imposing the penalty accepting the case of the Revenue was rightly set aside. The remand made thereafter requiring the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to produce the material on which it relied to satisfy the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner cannot, therefore, be treated as a direction to the detriment of the Revenue, by which the Revenue could be aggrieved. No further question arises for decision in the present case, at the instance of the Revenue. Consequently, the above question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue by saying that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner s order imposing the penalty and remanding the case to him. Since no one has appeared to oppose, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (6) TMI 3 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... income from the business of banking. But, in the instant case, the situation is quite different. The security was deposited by the assessee-bank in compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 24 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and, as had been held by the Supreme Court, the interest derived from such securities will be treated as part of the assessee s stock-in-trade and it amounts to income from the business of banking which is specifically exempt from tax under section 80P of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the argument as advanced by learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has no substance and hence we repel it. From the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the conclusion that the income from interest on securities derived by the assessee (bank) alone is exempt under section 80P of the Act and for the reasons given above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. However, in the circumstances of the case, we pass no orders as to costs.
-
1985 (6) TMI 2 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Commission Paid To Partner, Effect Of Dismissal Of SLP ... ... ... ... ..... leave petition was dismissed on merits since there is no practice to state the reasons while refusing the leave that it would tantamount to confirming the judgment sought to be appealed against on the matter of the principle involved and/or the conclusion reached therein. This contention has not commended itself to us because otherwise it would amount to saying that the decision is binding impliedly without having the benefit of the detailed consideration being stated by the Supreme Court. The contention should, therefore, be rejected and we should proceed on the basis that the decision in Sajjanraj Divanchand s case 1980 126 ITR 654 (Guj) stands overruled, as clearly directed by the Full Bench in Chhotalal and Co. s case 1984 150 ITR 276 (Guj). in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Chhotalal and Co. s case 1984 150 ITR 276 (Guj), we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There would be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (6) TMI 1 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Balancing Allowance, Carry Forward And Set Off, Loss, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... assessee to show cause why interest should not be levied or to satisfy the Income-tax Officer that there is a case for waiver or reduction. In these cases, no opportunity was given. We, therefore quash the orders to the extent of interest only. We give fifteen days time from today to the petitioners to Me representations before the concerned Officers. No further notice need be issued by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer shall consider the representations after giving a personal hearing to the petitioners and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. In all other respects, the impugned orders stand. With this direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
....
|
