Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1981 1981 (7) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 185 of 185 Records
-
1981 (7) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... connection. The factum and validity of adoption have not been disputed by the respondents. If this is so, the said daughter went out of the family of the petitioner and cannot be treated to be daughter of the petitioner for any legal consequences. The adopted daughter shall be deemed to be the child of her adoptive parents for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption, and from such date all the ties of the said child in the family of her birth shall be deemed to have been severed. In view of this position, there is no warrant in law to include the agricultural income from the extent of the lands settled on the said child, while computing the total agricultural income of the petitioner treating the child as a minor child of the petitioner. Hence, I find, the orders passed by the respondents cannot be sustained and the interference coveted by the petitioner has got to be exercised. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. But there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 4 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Registered Firm, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... ere is nothing in this decision which says that the assessee who had committed breach or infraction of law is entitled to deduction of penalty paid for such infraction in computing profits from his business. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in S. C. Kothari s case 1971 82 ITR 794, is of no assistance to the assessee. In the result, we hold that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee s claim for deduction of Rs. 4,18,000 in the computation of its total income for the assessment year 1968-69, and answer question No. (1) referred to us for our opinion in the affirmative and against the assessee. So far as question No. (2) is concerned, it is directly covered by the decision of this court in the assessee s case for an earlier year, i.e., CIT v. Garden Silk Wvg. Factory 1975 101 ITR 658. Following the said decision, we answer question No. (2) referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... h may be neither capital receipts, nor trading receipts, but cannot nevertheless be brought to tax, even though they happened to get into the hands of the assessee in the course of trade. The security deposits, in the present case, must, in our opinion, be given the status of this peculiar kind of receipts. The question for our answer in this reference had been formulated by the Tribunal thus Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the sum of Rs. 27,399, representing the balance of security deposits, which have been received by the assessee during the course of its business from its exhibitors and adjusted by the assessee in its accounts as its income for the assessment year 1972-73 ? Having regard to the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, our formal answer to the question is in the affirmative and against the Department. The assessee will have its costs from the Department. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. One set.
-
1981 (7) TMI 2 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ent runs thus The Revenue contended that the extra shift depreciation allowance cannot be claimed at all unless all the machineries were worked. If all machineries worked in third shift, extra shift allowance can be claimed. But if only some (and not all) machineries were used, no extra shift allowance can be claimed on any machinery (not even on machineries actually worked). The fallacy in the reasoning is self-evident. The view taken by the Tribunal understandably is that since only some of the machineries were worked in the course of third shift, the assessee can claim extra shift depreciation allowance in respect of those machineries only. It would be illogical to hold that extra shift depreciation allowance can be claimed in respect of all the machineries or none, irrespective of whether only some machineries are used or all. No other view is possible. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There would be no order regarding costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Interpretation of s. 226(3) - Objection by garnishee in as a result when ITO issued garnishee notice under s. 226(3)(I) - accountant is competent to file statement in affidavit - petitioners would be personally liable to pay such amount to the ITO and in case of default, the ITO would be entitled to treat. the petitioners as " assessee in default " under cl. (x) of s. 226, sub-s. (3).
....
|
|