|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 155 of 155 Records
-
1986 (6) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accrual, Business Connection, Collaboration Agreement, Income, Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... upply of secret knowledge and know-how and the other items took place entirely outside India and the payment of the said amount of 800,000 Canadian dollars did not result in accrual of any income of the assessee within the taxable territories in India. We hold further that the second part of the agreement, namely, service to be rendered by the assessee as production adviser to Hindustan Steel Ltd. has no connection or relation with the first part relating to the supply of know-how and secret knowledge and the basis on which service is to be rendered by the assessee as the production adviser of Hindustan Steel Ltd. in India would not amount to a trading activity by the assessee in India to obtain payment in respect of supply of know-how and secret knowledge, etc. For the reasons as aforesaid, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. MONJULA BOSE J.-I agree.
-
1986 (6) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accrual, Income ... ... ... ... ..... the facts and circumstances, it appears to us that the bills of the assessee were not disputed by the Railways at any stage. The Railways, however, made a counter-claim under the said agreement on account of late supply of sleepers. This counter-claim was apparently on the basis of damages alleged to have been suffered by the Railways on account of late supply of sleepers by the assessee. The assessee did not give up its claim on the bills and ultimately succeeded in reducing the counter-claim of the Railways from Rs. 73,731.09 to Rs. 71,637. It is not in dispute that the assessee kept its accounts on mercantile basis. Therefore, in the above facts, it has to be held that the supplementary bills of the assessee for escalation in price of the supplies accrued to the assessee in the relevant accounting year. For the reasons as above, both the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. MR S. MONJULA BOSE J.-I agree.
-
1986 (6) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Debatable Issue, Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... cided, whether the orders of rectification, which are also before us in this reference, passed at a time when the Income-tax Act, 1961, was in force were appealable orders or not as in the assessment year concerned the Act of 1922 was in force. It was held that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to rectify the order of assessment under section 154 of the Act of 1961, though in the assessment year concerned, the Act of 1922 was in force and that in fact he did so. It was further held that the order under section 154 of the Act of 1961 was admittedly an appealable order from which appeals had been filed. In that reference, the court refused to answer one of the questions, viz., whether a competent appeal lay before the Tribunal as it felt that the question was only academic. It is made clear that we have not gone into the question of appealability in this reference. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. MRS. MONJULA BOSE J.-I agree.
-
1986 (6) TMI 12 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... rd of Direct Taxes or such authority as the Board may authorise in that behalf. (6) The Income-tax Officer has power under section 3(4) of the Act to withhold consent for a change in the previous year if the request of the assessee is rooted in oblique motives of tax avoidance. For the reasons recorded above, the civil rule is allowed and the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, dated July 5, 1985, and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, North Eastern Region, dated August 23, 1985, are quashed. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner shall now consider afresh the application of the assessee-company for a change in the previous year in the light of the observations made above and the undertaking given by the assessee-company that the assessee-company shall be bound by any condition imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in allowing the change in the previous year so that no loss of revenue is occasioned. No costs. S. HAQUE J.-I agree.
-
1986 (6) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Depreciation, New Industrial Undertaking, Scientific Research, Surtax
-
1986 (6) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction, Royalty ... ... ... ... ..... ontractor and accepted by TEIL... In the entire agreement, there is no mention of any payment being made by a foreign Government or a foreign enterprise to the petitioner. It has not been shown to me that there is any other arrangement which is legal and which provides for the payment to the petitioner by any foreign Government or by a foreign enterprise for the services rendered by the petitioner to a foreign Government or a foreign enterprise. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim deduction under section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act. Reliance placed by Mr. Ashar on the judgment of Pratap J., in Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. v. CBDT 1986 159 ITR 162 (Bom) (Writ Petition No. 1044 of 1981 decided on 10th June, 1985) is, in my opinion, misplaced. On the facts of this case, it is abundantly clear that the most important requirement of section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act is not satisfied at all. In the result, the petition must fail. Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs.
-
1986 (6) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... not present any problem in view of the circular instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to which our attention has been invited by counsel for the assessee. From the Circular Instruction No. 33-D(XXV-29) of 1965, dated November 8, 1965, it is seen that the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the said decisions has been accepted. Further, this court also in Income-tax Reference Cases Nos. 15 and 16 of 1982 (CIT v. Balaji Commercial Syndicate- 1987 165 ITR 596) disposed of on November 15, 1983, has observed that the payment of interest referred to in section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act refers to the actual net amount of interest paid to each partner and the interpretation of section 40(b) could not depend upon a particular way in which interest is accounted for in the books of the firm. In the light of these decisions and the said circular, the answer to the question should be in the affirmative and against the Revenue and we accordingly answer the same.
-
1986 (6) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... rs formed for the purpose of protecting and promoting the interests of Indian shipping. The respondent No. 1 issued a notice in the month of April, 1980, to petitioner No. 1 under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, inter alia, reciting that petitioner No. 1 association has net wealth chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1976-77 and the same had escaped assessment. Notices were also issued in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The validity of these notices is challenged in this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the dictum laid down by the two Division Benches of this court, the petitioners are entitled to succeed and the action of the respondents in issuing show-cause notices to petitioner No. 1 under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (6) TMI 7 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... . This finding, it may be seen, has been arrived at by the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence and the factual aspects of the case. So too was the next conclusion reached by the Tribunal. The date of the sale of the old building was February 9, 1977. The completion of the construction of the new building was in March, 1977, although the commencement of the construction started in 1976. It is immaterial, as the Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly observed, about the date of commencement of the construction of the new building. Since the assessee has constructed the building within two years from the date of sale of the old building, he was entitled to relief under section 54 of the Act. Both the conclusions reached by the Tribunal are on an appraisal of the evidence on record and they are not shown to be unreasonable or perverse. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order to costs.
-
1986 (6) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... d in the computation of the capital employed for the purpose of section 80J. On a parity of reasoning, interest accruing on such borrowed capital has necessarily to be excluded. By reason of our answer to question No. 2, question No. 3 referred at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. By reason of our answer to questions Nos. 2 and 3, questions Nos. 4 and 5 referred at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 are answered in the negative and in the affirmative, respectively, both in favour of the Revenue. The learned advocate for the assessee did not press for an answer to question No. 6 referred at the instance of the assessee for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 on the ground that the same has become infructuous. Accordingly, we decline to answer the same. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. MONJULA BOSE J.-I agree
-
1986 (6) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ndings made therein by the learned judge could also be relied on. In fact, we find that the passage relied on is also very vague. Except to say that in the beginning they were making large profits, there was nothing on record to show that any profit was made and it was not divided and was allowed to be accumulated. In the circumstances, therefore, we are unable to agree with the Tribunal that there was any basis for its conclusion that a portion of the profit derived from the business of the partnership until the date of the compromise was also included in the sum of Rs. 90,500 or that that was a sum of Rs. 60,000. We accordingly answer the latter part of the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and hold that the entirety was capital receipt. In the light of this answer, it is unnecessary for us to answer the other portion of the first question or the second and the third questions. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1986 (6) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, Reason To Believe ... ... ... ... ..... validity to the search. The result of the search must abide by the result of the writ petition that was filed. The entire matter was sub judice when the search was conducted. Since the search was entirely unlawful, there will be an order directing the respondents to return the documents that were illegally seized to the petitioner forthwith. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds. There will be a writ in the nature of prayer C . There will be an order directing the respondents to forthwith return the documents that were seized in the course of the search carried out pursuant to the search warrant No. C-20/89 of 1986 dated March 11, 1986. There will be no order as to costs. Mr. R. N. Das, appearing for the respondents, has made an oral prayer for stay of operation of this order. Operation of the order passed today is stayed for six weeks. But the respondents will not make any use of the seized documents and will keep the documents in a sealed cover for a period of six weeks.
-
1986 (6) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Loss, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ven though the loss return was not filed within the time prescribed under section 139(3) as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was admissible in law as such for the entire year and should not be calculated proportionately with reference to the period for which the undertaking was in operation during the year ? The controversy raised in the first question is covered by a decision of this court in Presidency Medical Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT 1977 108 ITR 838. Following the said decision, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The controversy in question No. (2) is also covered by a decision of this court in CIT v. Oyster Packagers (P) Ltd. 1985 152 ITR 471. Following the said decision, we answer the question in the affirmative and also in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. MONJULA BOSE J.-I agree.
-
1986 (6) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... rs that section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was construed by the Madras High Court in Arunachalathammal v. Ramachandran Pillai, AIR 1963 Mad 255. This decision of the Madras High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated February 20, 1970, in Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1967 (reported in 1971 3 SCC 847). The Supreme Court observed that section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act had no application to the properties received by the members of the joint family by partition. This judgment of the Supreme Court has been referred to in AIR 1972 Mad 264 (Tirupurasundari Ammal v. Srinivasam Pillai.) and is reported as Ramachandra Pillai v. Arunachalathammal in 1971 3 SCC 847. It appears that the controversy, if any, in the matter has been set at rest by the Supreme Court by the aforesaid observation. In that view of the matter, this application cannot succeed. There will be no order on this application. There will be no order as to costs. MONJULA BOSE. J.-I agree.
-
1986 (6) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... There could also be no dispute that after the reassessment order is made in pursuance of the first notice issued under section 148, if the Incometax Officer has any reason to believe that there is any escapement of the income which will be covered under section 147, he can initiate fresh proceedings with reference to the reassessment order already made in pursuance of the notice under section 148, and in that way he can make revised orders any number of times but that cannot affect the position that when a return has been made in pursuance of the notice under section 148, till that return is disposed of by any assessment order or reassessment order, no further notice can be issued under section 148. In the circumstances, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the answer to the first question, the second question does not arise for our consideration. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
....
|
