|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 186 of 186 Records
-
1992 (12) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Mining Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... and the question as reframed by the Tribunal. We find that the question referred by the Tribunal is wide enough to take care of all facets of the controversy sought to be raised by the assessee by way of four different questions. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the prayer of the assessee that the Tribunal should be directed to refer all the four questions as proposed by it. So far as the reframing of the question referred by the Tribunal in the language suggested by the assessee is concerned, on carefully going through the question referred by the Tribunal, we do not think that there is any necessity for doing so as, in our opinion, the question has been framed very carefully and properly and it brings out the real controversy at issue between the parties. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this notice of motion and the same is, therefore, rejected. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1992 (12) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Loss, Return ... ... ... ... ..... he assessment year 1974-75, before the time allowed under section 139(4) to file the return belatedly expired. The second question is only consequential. Speculation loss determined pursuant to a return filed under section 148, but within the time allowed under section 139(4), is eligible for carry forward and set-off and the same should be carried forward and set-off against the speculation profit available in the subsequent year. The question whether or not the set-off of the speculation loss determined in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 should be carried forward and set-off against the speculation profit available in the assessment year 1977-78 would depend on the answer to the first question. We, therefore, decline to answer the second question. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1992 (12) TMI 4 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... come into existence. Similarly, if the business is closed down then the asset ceases to be a commercial asset. In the present case though initially the agreement was for one year and has been renewed from time to time no commercial asset has come into existence from which any business could have been carried on. Simply because the expenditure incurred in construction up to the plinth level has been shown as a commercial asset in the books of account it will not change the character of the income which has been received only on account of storage facility which has been provided by letting out the land to the Food Corporation of India. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the income from letting out of the land to the Food Corporation of India is the income from business. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No orders as to costs.
-
1992 (12) TMI 3 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... section 10A(8), Explanation (iii), which was added by Act No. 11 of 1987 with effect from April 1, 1981. Manufacture involves the bringing into existence of a new product which may have a different physical or chemical composition and is understood differently in common and commercial parlance. This court has held in CTO v. Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. 1986 61 STC 264, that excavation of gypsum from the mine is not a process of manufacture. So far as the conversion of the mineral in the form of rodi and powder, it is evident that it does not retain the physical shape which the raw material has and is understood as a different commercial commodity by the business community. In these circumstances, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that conversion of limestone by crushing into rodi or lime dust is a process of manufacture. In these circumstances, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (12) TMI 2 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dispose Of, Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... e gone through the order of the Tribunal and we find that the Tribunal has not at all discussed the evidence. They decided the case on the basis of their findings in Manjeet Stone s case 1991 190 ITR 183 (Raj). Thus, the Tribunal has not applied its mind to the facts and in the circumstances of the case and, in our opinion, the matter requires to be decided by the Tribunal afresh keeping in view the law laid down by this court in Manjeet Stone s case 1991 190 ITR 183, referred to above. This court, therefore, cannot direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up the statement of case and refer the question sought to be raised to this court for its opinion, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, for the reasons stated earlier, we deem it proper to leave the matter open to the Tribunal to consider all the relevant material on record and the reasoning of the Commissioner of Income-tax and leave it open to rehear the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with law.
-
1992 (12) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Original Assessment, Reassessment Proceedings, Show-cause Notice
....
|
