|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 200 Records
-
1981 (3) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the valuation of the assets of the partnership firm, as that would amount to virtually conceding the claim of the respondents that s. 16A of the W.T Act can be resorted to for valuing the assets of partnership firm. Further, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents by restraining them from proceeding with the valuation of the assets of the partnership firm during the pendency of the writ petitions, since the period during which the injunction order is in force, correspondingly enlarges the period of limitation for completing the assessment. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there should be an injunction restraining the second respondent from proceeding with the valuation of the assets of the partnership firm in pursuance of the directions given by the first respondent, is well founded, and had to be accepted. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed and the injunction as prayed for in W.M.P. Nos. 3718 to 3721 of 1980 is granted. No costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Firm, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... pass necessary orders thereunder in accordance with law. If the grounds which were available to him at the time of the passing of the order do not find a mention in his order, appealed against, then it will be deemed that he rejected those grounds for the purpose of any action under s. 263(1) of the Act. In this situation, the Tribunal, while hearing an appeal filed by the assessee, cannot substitute the, grounds which the Commissioner himself did not think proper to form the basis of his order. As a result of the above discussion, in our opinion, the Tribunal was not competent to take into consideration the fact of increase in the number of adult partners from 10 to I 1, when the Additional Commissioner had not, in fact, relied upon the said change in holding the ITO s order dated October 20, 1970, to be erroneous. Thus, the answer to the said question is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The references stands answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecision is really not helpful to us except for the fact that before the Orissa High Court, the parties did not seem to dispute the nature of the notification. The learned counsel has fairly not disputed before us that if this notification cannot be availed of by the claimant, then no valid grievance can be made against the impugned order in this appeal. Since we have held that the notification operates only in respect of banking companies, we do not find any infirmity in the order appealed against. The appeal must, therefore, fail and is dismissed with costs in two sets. Costs quantified at Rs. 250 each per party. Mr. Keshavdas requests that the order may not be given effect to because the appellant wants to move the Supreme Court. The official assignee will not proceed with the enquiry for a period of three weeks from today. Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court rejected as we do not find that any other view on the construction of the notification is possible.
-
1981 (3) TMI 17 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... make the entries at any time before the assessment is completed. The entries become final only when the assessment is made. Till then, they are in a fluid state and any defect or error in them could be corrected. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in the facts and circumstances of this case, in holding that the requirements of s. 34(3)(a) of the Act were duly satisfied so as to qualify the assessee to claim development rebate of Rs. 7,18,208 under s. 33(1)(a) of the Act. However, it may be made clear that out of the total amount claimed on account of development rebate, the AAC had found a sum of Rs. 1,85,638 as credited to the reserve account and, therefore, to the extent admissible the assessee will be entitled to claim the same under s. 33(1)(a) of the Act. Thus, the answer to question No. 2 is in the negative, that is, against the assessee. The reference stands answered accordingly with costs. Civil Miscellaneous Application also stands disposed of.
-
1981 (3) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Mistake Apparent From Record, Remuneration Paid To Directors, Tribunal
-
1981 (3) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Benefit, Amenity Or Perquisite To Employee ... ... ... ... ..... the sales falling within those categories, the value thereof cannot be included in the turnover of the dealer and no question would arise of the applicability of rule 7(1)(k) and rule 20(2) at all to these cases. The amount for which the oil is sold in inter-State trade or commerce would not be lawfully included in the turnover of the dealer and if the amount for which such oil is sold cannot thus be included in his turnover no occasion would arise for the deduction under rule 7(1)(k) of the value of the coconut and/or copra or groundnut and/or kernel purchased and converted by the dealer into such oil and cake. Applying the aforesaid principles in the context of this section, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in the facts as found on the question of law. Therefore, the second question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (3) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of a domestic company-... (B) in addition, where the company is (i) a company in which the public are substantially interested, or (ii) a company as is referred to in clause (iii) of sub-section (2) or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 104 of the Income-tax Act, or (iii) such a company as is exempt from the operation of section 104 of the said Act by a notification issued under the provisions of sub-section (3) of that section, on so much of the total income as does not exceed the relevant amount of distributions of dividends by the company. 7.5 per cent. Explanation 1.-In clause (B), the expression the relevant amount of distributions of dividends means the aggregate of the following amounts, namely -... (b) so much of the amount of the dividends, other than dividends on preference shares, declared or distributed by the company during the previous year as exceeds ten per cent. of its paid-up equity share capital as on the first day of the previous year.
-
1981 (3) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Change Of Law, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ecting the AAC for considering the merits of the quantum appeal, but we make it clear that the validity of the power to make the assessment under the old Act could not as such be questioned. So far as question No. (iv) is concerned, the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalties under s. 27l(1)(a) and s. 273(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the grounds it has shown. But neither the AAC nor the Tribunal have considered the merits of the said appeal. In disposing of the appeal the Tribunal would be at liberty to consider the merits of the order imposing the penalties. This question is answered in the manner as aforesaid and by saying that so far as question No. (iv) is concerned, we say, penalty was exigible in law, but as to whether the penalty should be imposed, and the quantum thereof, the Tribunal or the AAC will have to consider them on merits. In the facts and circumstances of this case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (3) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... er, on the facts and in the Affirmative (against the Revenue) circumstances of the case, for the assessment year 1969-70, the payment of Rs. 95,400 made to the Textile Commissioner under the provisions of clause 21C(1)(b) of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948, was expenditure allowable under section 28 or under section 37 of the Act ? At the instance of the assessee for the asstt. year 1969-70. Whether, on the facts and in the Negative (against the Revenue) circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that perquisite in excess of 1/5th of the salary paid to the two managing directors, who were employees of the company, was rightly disallowed and in holding that such perquisite and other remuneration to the directors could be allowed only if they are allowable under section 40(a)(v) and also under section 40(c) of the Act ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There would be no order as to costs
-
1981 (3) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ces were also taken into consideration which have been narrated earlier. The Tribunal while considering this question noted the conduct of the assessee in trying to withhold Gopaldas and in not bringing all the facts to the notice of the ITO. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid material could permit a reasonable inference that the business was benami. Merely because on these very facts a different inference was also possible, it will not be open to this court to convert this finding of fact into one of law because the twin requirements pointed out by the Lordships of the Supreme Court for treating a finding of fact as one of law are not present in the present case. We, therefore, hold that the findings on both the questions formulated by the assessee were findings of fact based on relevant material and no question of law could arise out of the order of the Tribunal. The application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150.
-
1981 (3) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Debt Due, Deduction, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... nds to is to find out if, on the facts found by the Tribunal, their determination in the point of law is correct or not. We have earlier referred to the grounds on which the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that there was no nexus whatever between the disposition of the property by the deceased in favour of his son in 1963 and the borrowing effected by the deceased from his son after an interval of six or seven years. The house site was certainly not one of the resources from which the deceased s son could have advanced the loan to his father. It was not one of the properties available to him which the son could look to for the recoupment of the loan. There was no other kind of relation which could be established between the outstanding debt of Rs. 30,000 and the gift of the house site 7 years earlier. We accordingly answer both the questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The accountable persons will have their costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (3) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the right or interest of an assessee in an insurance policy is a property not chargeable under this Act. A similar question arose before this court in CWT v. Premnarayan Garg (M.C.C. No. 39/1979 decided on 20-2-1981- 1982 134 ITR 315). This court, following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jiwan Lal Virmani v. CWT 1967 66 ITR 338, held that a loan secured on life insurance policy could not be deducted as a debt for computing net wealth. The reference was answered in favour of the Department. Following the above decision, we answer this question as follows The Appellate Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the deduction on account of loan obtained from LIC against the security of exempted assets, viz., LIC policy, was an admissible deduction in the calculation of his net wealth if the loan taken was used for a purpose which was not exempt from wealth-tax. The answer is in the negative and in favour of the Department. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... he fund for extraneous purposes not connected with the objects and purposes of the fund. The result is that not only that small portion of the fund which was utilised for such purposes out of the contributions but the entire contributions received by the fund became taxable in the hands of the fund and the fund has been assessed to tax on an income of Rs. 5,03,380 for the assessment year 1971-72 and on Rs. 7,91,770 for the assessment year 1972-73. If only the voluntary contributions had been utilised strictly for charitable purposes for which they were intended, the welfare fund would not have been liable to pay any tax. By reason of the misapplication of a portion of the fund, a heavy tax liability has been imposed upon the fund. We hope and trust that, in future at least, care is taken to see that the contributions to the fund are strictly applied for the purposes, for which they are intended and the fund is not put to the necessity of paying any tax on such contributions.
-
1981 (3) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... sed. There is no provision for an appeal against an order passed under sub-s. (8) of s. 139 of the Act simpliciter. If the assessee has challenged the order under appeal on any of the grounds mentioned in s. 246(1)(c) and, consequently, the liability to pay penal interest is also challenged, the appeal would be competent. This is so because the question of interest is directly linked with the quantum of tax in view of the provisions of s. 139(8) of the Act. But, in case the appeal does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of s. 246(1)(c), the appeal against an order passed under s. 139(8) simpliciter will not be competent. In such cases revision under s. 264 may be maintainable. As the appeal in the present case was not simpliciter against the charging of the interest, the appeal was certainly competent in view of the said decision. The question referred is, consequently, answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 6 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Provision For Gratuity, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... d and utilised for the construction of the entire building (including the floors which have been let out by the assessee) a portion should be attributed to premises let out and the interest thereon disallowed. We need not express any opinion on that question at this stage. So far as the present year of account is concerned, there can be no doubt that monies borrowed by the assessee have been utilised only for the construction of premises which are used for business. This being so, there is absolutely no basis on which it may be contended that a portion of the interest should be disallowed merely because the assessee had concrete plans to add to the building and use the additions for other purposes. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal was thus a pure finding of fact and we are unable to see how any question of law arises therefrom. In these circumstances, the present petition fails and is dismissed. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 150.
-
1981 (3) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... mmission is not a capital expenditure and is also not an application of profits after they were earned ? The first part of the question refers to the Tribunal s determination that payment by the assessee of one-eighth of the managing agency commission is not capital expenditure. In our judgment, the controversy as to capital or revenue, expenditure can hardly arise in this case, because the payment is not properly considered as an item of expenditure at all. The second part of the question does arise on the facts, because the assessee parted with the one-eighth share of the managing agency remuneration only after earning it. But this answer does not comprehend the entire controversy in the case. Such a comprehensive answer, as respects the first question, we have discussed in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment.. In the result, we answer this reference in the assessee s favour and against the Revenue. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1981 (3) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Exemptions, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... on of law, which has been referred to us for our opinion, is in the following terms Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the exemption provided in section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, should be allowed in respect of the dwelling house of the Hindu undivided family from the value of the joint family properties before determining the share of the deceased and also that of the lineal descendants, the former for assessment and the latter for aggregation ? In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, our answer to the question is in the affirmative and against the Department. The accountable person in this case has not been represented. The learned counsel for the Department has placed before us all the considerations that are relevant for a decision in this case including those which might have been thought to assist the case of the accountable persons. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 3 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed for any previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the ITO satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. On the assessee s own showing the amount of Rs. 72,000 stood credited in his books for the relevant year of account. The assessee s explanation about the nature and source thereof has rightly not been accepted by the ITO and the AAC. In our opinion, the assessee s explanation is not supported by any evidence on record and hence it cannot be believed. Therefore, under s. 68 of the Act, the amount of Rs. 72,000 was liable to be included in the assessee s income for the year under appeal. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the inclusion of Rs. 72,000. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the basis of the write-off of the bad debt under s. 36(2)(i)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal also considered an alternative contention urged by the assessee before the Tribunal which was to the effect that even if an allowance cannot be granted under s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act, still the assessee would be entitled to claim the amount written off as a loss incidental to a trade. In the view we have held in the foregoing part of the discussion that the assessee is entitled to an allowance of bad debt under s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act and in view of the further determination that s. 36(2)(i)(a) does not stand in the way of that allowance being granted to the assessee itself, the further question whether the amount should be allowed as a revenue loss does not arise. We, therefore, desist from answering this question. However, for the reasons, we have earlier set out, this reference is answered in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (3) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner's Powers For Revision, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... hich has got to be understood in the context of and in the interests of revenue administration. The power, as we conceive it, is intended to maintain the tone of the revenue administration and the morale of the Officers manning it. Such a power cannot, in any manner, be equated to, or regarded as approaching in any way the appellate jurisdiction or even the ordinary revisional power conferred on the Commissioner under section 264 of the Act. For all the above reasons, we hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax, in this case, was not justified in interfering with the order of the Income-tax Officer under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal s order, confirming the Commissioner s decision, was based on a misconception of the provisions of section 263 and the nature and finality of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. On this basis, our answer to the question of law is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
....
|
