|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 197 of 197 Records
-
1990 (5) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... in not treating the application under section 254(2) as a petition for review and not rectifying the mistake apparent on the face of the records ? 4. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in ignoring Form No. 11-A which was already discussed in the order of the lower authorities and was very much part of the records ? So far as questions Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, they pertain to the question whether any concession was made by learned counsel for the assessee before the Tribunal. Though his case was that he had never made such a concession, the Tribunal has not accepted this position. This is a factual aspect and not a question of law. Questions Nos. 1 to 3 cannot, therefore, be directed to be stated. We are, however, of the opinion that question No. 4 does arise from the order of the Tribunal. We, accordingly, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer question No. 4 aforesaid. The application is, accordingly, allowed in part.
-
1990 (5) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penal Interest ... ... ... ... ..... educed the interest on both counts for the period April 1, 1981 to September 30, 1984, but refused to waive the interest for the period subsequent to September 30, 1984. The first order of assessment relates to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85. There is another order of assessment which pertains to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. In view of the fact that the award dated September 13, 1984, gives all the relevant figures, there was no difficulty on the part of the petitioner in filing the return. The reasons given by the deputy commissioner and affirmed by the Commissioner cannot be said to be unreasonable and irrelevant. We see no good ground for interference by this court in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Interest, Refund, Revision, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... ber 5, 1974. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that, to understand the meaning of the words other proceedings , s. (sic) of the repealed Act, i.e., Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, should be relied upon does not seem to be correct. The assessment in question was not made under the repealed Act, but was made under the Act of 1961 of which section 240 read with section 244 fully applies to this case. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to get interest on Rs. 73,728 to which amount he was entitled as refund at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum for the period envisaged under section 244 of the Act keeping in view the fact that the petitioner s claim for the refund arose in pursuance of the order dated March 29, 1979, under section 263 of the Act and the refund of Rs. 73,728 was made to the petitioner on October 12, 1982. The writ petition is allowed and mandamus is issued accordingly against the respondent. The petitioner will get his costs from the respondent.
-
1990 (5) TMI 14 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... int and the documents produced before the trial court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in summoning the petitioners and it cannot be said that as subsequently, the income-tax authorities have given some relief to the petitioners, the pendency of the complaint and summoning of the petitioners is an abuse of the process of court. The Department, in support of its case to prove the ingredients of the offence, shall lead its evidence and the petitioners shall be at liberty to produce anything in their defence and the criminal court shall, after considering all the aspects and the evidence produced before it, come to conclusion as to whether any offence is made out or not. It cannot be said that the pendency of criminal complaint is an abuse of the process of court. As a result of the discussion above, I am of the view that this petition has no legal force and must fail. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial court on June 11, 1990.
-
1990 (5) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Depreciation On Cylinders, Refundable Security Deposit ... ... ... ... ..... nufacturing activity but nevertheless the cylinders were being used for its business activities and, therefore, depreciation was allowable. Secondly, as far as repairs are concerned, the Tribunal had held that the repairs were in fact being carried not by the assessee but by a person who was competent to carry out the repairs though the expenses were incurred by the assessee. These expenses were clearly allowable as deduction. With regard to the security deposit, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. 1964 53 ITR 75 was not applicable and the security deposit did not belong to the assessee as the money remained as that of the consumer. On the return of the cylinders, the security deposit was refundable. Therefore, the same was not a revenue receipt. In our opinion, on the aforesaid conclusions of the Tribunal, no question of law arises and this petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Advertisement, Business Expenditure, Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... to weighted deduction under section 35B on expenditure incurred in connection with the carpet gifted to the foreign buyer ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction on expenses claimed under the head Packing and forwarding charges ? In our opinion, question No. 1 is a pure question of fact and rule 6B is, on the face of it, not applicable because that rule applies to expenses incurred on advertisement. The finding of fact in this case is that, to foreign customer, a carpet worth Rs. 3,000 was presented. This surely is not a case of advertisement on behalf of the assessee when, admittedly, the assessee earns a lot of income from its foreign customers. As regards the other two questions, the interpretation of section 35B is involved and, therefore, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid questions Nos. 2 and 3 to this court. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (5) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Notification ... ... ... ... ..... cts of the case, it can be stated without any fear of contradiction that only the Central Government have the power to issue or to cancel, vary or amend a notification already issued under clause (v) of sub-section (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act. If that be so, the Central Board of Revenue which is but a creature of the statute which contains the above sub-clause in exercise of which the Central Government have issued exhibit P-3 notification, has no power to alter, vary or cancel the notifications exhibit P-3. Exhibit P-4 proceeding of the Central Board of Revenue which purports to vary exhibit P-3 notification, therefore, is not sustainable in law. So is the position regarding exhibit P-14. In the light of what is stated above, exhibit P-15 notice calling upon the petitioner-Board to submit income-tax returns for the years made mention of therein is not sustainable in law. The original petition, accordingly, is allowed and exhibits P-4, P-14 and P-15 are quashed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 10 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Interest On Borrowed Money ... ... ... ... ..... is found as a fact that the amount concerned is not covered by section 80VV of the Act as it was not spent in connection with proceedings before the authorities under the Act. We do not see any substance in this question. It is, accordingly, rejected. Question No. 7.-We do not think that there was any justification in the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) not allowing the expenditure incurred on bringing the dead body of the late chairman from Bombay to Modinagar. We do not think this question of law ought to be directed to be stated. Question No. 8.-An identical question was declined by this court in Income-tax Application No. 165 of 1987. Accordingly, this question is rejected. In the result, this Income-tax Application is allowed in part only to the extent of question No. 1 and rejected with respect to the other questions. The Tribunal is, accordingly, directed to state question No. 1 aforestated for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act.
-
1990 (5) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Perquisite ... ... ... ... ..... cian who is not an employee of the assessee. The result of the above discussion is that the following two questions are directed to be stated by the Tribunal under section 256 of the Act. (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the premium for personal accident insurance policy in respect of the managing director could not be considered to be a perquisite within the meaning of section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Incometax Officer to calculate the disallowance under rule 6D with reference to the total journeys undertaken in a year and not with reference to each journey undertaken by an employee or director on day-to-day basis ? Accordingly, the income-tax application is allowed in part. It is rejected in so far as the other two questions are concerned.
-
1990 (5) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... January 1, 1964, when sold later, as unyielding and worn out tree, will be far lesser in value and no capital gains can arise in the said transaction. The reasoning contained in the aforesaid Bench decisions dated August 22, 1989, and October 16, 1989, apply with equal force herein also. We answer question No. 2 referred to us in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We answer question No. 3 by holding that no capital gains arose on the sale of the trees and the fair market value of the trees sold during the relevant accounting period relating to the assessment year 1979-80, as on January 1, 1964, would be far higher than the sale proceeds fetched on the sale of the trees. Question No. 3 is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The two references are disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1990 (5) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tants was justified by holding that it was of a capital nature and not a revenue expenditure ? So far as question No. 1 is concerned, we do not think that there is any question of law that can be said to have arisen. The Tribunal has merely remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority for fresh decision. The income-tax application is allowed in part.
-
1990 (5) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference, Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... to the capital accumulated over a number of years and also the jewellery in question and the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the additions of (a) Rs. 30,000 out of capital accumulation. (b) Rs. 7,300 out of jewellery thereunder for the assessment year 1981-82? This application is, accordingly, allowed in part with costs which we assess at Rs. 150.
-
1990 (5) TMI 5 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion of this court in the case of Sharbati Devi Jhalani v. CWT 1986 159 ITR 549. As regards question No. 2, the Tribunal itself has made a reference of the following question to this court Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the valuation of shares of Messrs. Modipon Ltd. has to be taken as per the provisions of rule 1-D of the Wealth-tax Rules ? The grievance of Shri Rajendra is that the latter portion of question No. 2 which was proposed has not been referred. In our opinion, it is open to the court when hearing the reference under section 256(1) to reframe the question to bring out the full scope and effect, if the court thinks it necessary. As we read the question which has already been referred, it is wide enough to incorporate in it the concept which is sought to be brought in by the question proposed by the Department. The Department will in no way be prejudiced. This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
-
1990 (5) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts have taken the view that it is permissible for one individual to be a partner in his individual capacity as well as a karta. In our opinion, a question of law does arise and we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to grant of registration ? The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (5) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Finding Or Direction, Limitation, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... oting down the word yes against the column of sanction without applying his mind to the facts of the case, cannot be considered to be a proper or valid sanction. In this connection, the respondent was afforded sufficient opportunity to place the relevant papers but the papers were not produced before the court. It cannot be held to be a proper and valid sanction within the meaning of section 151 of the Act, and for this reason also, the impugned notice tinder section 148 falls to the ground and proceedings for reopening of the assessment in the absence of a valid sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot be initiated. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated March 5, 1983, under section 148 of the Act is quashed. It is further directed that no proceedings for reopening the assessment or making a reassessment in pursuance of the impugned notice tinder section 148 can be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner is to get his costs from the respondent.
-
1990 (5) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Expenditure On Tax Proceedings, Income Tax Proceedings, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... n by the assessee challenging the steps taken by the Income-tax Officer for computation of the liability of the assessee will clearly come within the mischief of section 80VV. Therefore, in our view the expenditure incurred in connection with the proceedings challenging the notices under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not allowable under the provisions of section 80VV of the Act. The question raised is answered in the manner following The Tribunal was not justified in holding the disallowance of the expenditure incurred by the assessee, in respect of the writ petition challenging the validity of the notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, however, was justified in upholding the disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee in respect of the writ petition challenging the validity of the notices under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There will, however, be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Held that the properties in respect of which leases had expired in 1958 and 1963 and notices had been received by the assessee to hand over the possession were not assets within the meaning of section 2(e)(2)(iii) of the Act and the value of the same was not liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee - Tribunal was not right in holding that the interest of the assessee in respect of the properties in dispute was for a period over six years for the purpose of section 2(e)(2)(iii)
....
|
