|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 219 of 219 Records
-
1991 (11) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... d circumstances, the Commissioner has held that the assessee had completely failed to disclose the actual amount of expenditure incurred for the transportation of coal during the relevant assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. He has further observed that this was done deliberately to conceal the actual profit earned by the assessee. This finding has not been demonstrated to be vitiated by any error much less one apparent on the face of the record. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed summarily.
-
1991 (11) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... n of the principle of audi alteram partem . The prayer in such a situation for rehearing the appeal is not a prayer to review its earlier decision. It is to set aside its ex parte order and for affording an opportunity of being heard. This power is inherent in the Tribunal. The Tribunal has refused to exercise that power for no justifiable reason. Therefore, I quash exhibits P-9 and P-11 orders and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin, to restore I.T.A. No. 29 (Coch) of 1987, and to dispose of the same afresh, after affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Depending on the result in that appeal, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-11, Ernakulam, and the Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, are directed to pass fresh orders of assessment, if any, as required by law, on the share income of the partners of the firm. Original petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.
-
1991 (11) TMI 17 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction For Payment From Foreign Government, Deduction U/S 80-O ... ... ... ... ..... sk. The imparting of training to the Nigerian personnel by the assessee would seem to us more appropriately to be the imparting to them of information concerning industrial knowledge and skill. The information that is conveyed by the assessee to the Nigerian personnel is so conveyed for use in Nigeria in the manufacture and sale of products under the agreement. In our view, therefore, the provisions of section 80-0 in this behalf are complied with. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue (W. A. No. 2137 of 1990 ) fails and is dismissed. The appeal by the assessee (W. A. No. 2082 of 1990 ) succeeds. The judgment and order under appeal, in so far as it holds that the Board was right in refusing to grant approval for the deduction under section 80-O of the fees received by the assessee under the agreement for the training of Nigerian personnel in India, is set aside. Consequently, the petition is made absolute as prayed. Orders on the appeals accordingly. No orders as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... alid partnership has not come into existence. Shri N. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the assessee, has contended that the firm has operated for about three months in this year and thereafter she has contributed Rs. 70,000 in the subsequent year. Mr. Gupta has submitted that, in the present case, the question of interpretation of the clauses of the partnership deed and the provisions of the Income-tax Act is required in the sense that, if a partner has not contributed any capital but has undertaken liability for losses, still whether it could be said that a genuine partnership has come into existence or not. The assessment of partners was completed in respect of their share income from the firm. We are of the opinion that a question of law does arise and, therefore, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to prepare the statement of case and refer the above questions for decision to this court within four months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Liability For Excise Duty ... ... ... ... ..... deduction for the assessment year 1975-76. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that since the goods were not manufactured during the relevant previous year, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of excise duty. Since the excise duty became real and enforceable inasmuch as the goods were cleared during the relevant previous year and the show cause-cum-demand notice was also issued to the assessee during the same relevant previous year, although it may be that the assessee disputed the duty when the goods were manufactured or produced and, accordingly, moved the High Court, and the goods became non-dutiable with effect from January 5, 1981, the demand, although earlier disputed, became real and enforceable and the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction in the previous year in question. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the reframed question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (11) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... of Rs. 74,633 out of advances received by the assessee-company during the course of its business received in the earlier years and credited in the profit and loss account in the relevant previous year is the income of the assessee-company. In view of the above, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law which arise out of the order of the Tribunal (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the debts aggregating to Rs. 8,04,199 had become bad during the relevant previous year and the assessee had validly written them off ? (2) Whether the balance of Rs. 74,633 out of advances received by the assessee-company during the course of its business received in the earlier years and credited in the profit and loss account in the relevant previous year is the income of the assessee-company ? The reference application is, accordingly, partly allowed. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 13 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , to be clubbed along with the income of the respective assessees in the light of the decision reported in Chaturbhujdas Karnani v. CIT 1958 34 ITR 553 (Bom). In the light of the above discussion, I agree with the judgment of my learned brother, Kochu Thommen J. (as he then was) and answer question No. 3 in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the light of the answer to question No. 3, I agree that it is unnecessary to answer questions Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, I decline to answer questions Nos. 1 and 2. In the result, according to the majority view, question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, leaving questions Nos. 1 and 2 unanswered as, in the light of the answer to question No. 3, answer to questions Nos. 1 and 2 became unnecessary. 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.
-
1991 (11) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Other Reserves, Share Premium, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... um Oil Co. 1966 59 ITR 685, at page 694, the Supreme Court observed The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the account Capital surplus brought in in the balance-sheet represents premium realised from the issue of its shares within the meaning of rule 3, or in the alternative, represents reserves not allowed in computing the profits.. . The alternative finding of the Supreme Court supports the view taken by the Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the share premium representing the difference between the book value and the par value arising on amalgamation of a few other companies with the assessee-company would be a reserve as shown in item No. (3) under the head Reserves and Surplus in Part I of the Sixth Schedule to the Companies Act and, therefore, it was not hit by Explanation 2 to rule 2. We, accordingly, answer both the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (11) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Agreement Between India And U.K., Renewal ... ... ... ... ..... as been specifically made clear that the discharged certificate of deposit will not be accepted for renewal unless an application in the prescribed form of the Housing Development Finance Corporation filled in properly and completed in all respects is submitted along with the old certificate of deposit. Thus it is only on the fresh application that a new contract of deposit is created. In our opinion, on a true and proper interpretation of article 12(2) of the said convention when the deposits have been renewed after the coming into force of the aforesaid convention, such renewal amounted to a fresh deposit and, therefore, the deposit was first created after the coming into effect of the Convention of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and accordingly the provisions of article 12(2) will apply. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (11) TMI 10 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance, Foreign Exchange ... ... ... ... ..... sion of this court in the case of CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. 1988 173 ITR 374. In so far as the question relates to depreciation for technical documentation is concerned, it is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 157 ITR 86. Having regard to these judgments, the second question, as it is agreed, is to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and it is so answered. The third question to be answered reads thus Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the extra expenditure incurred on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange rate which was capitalised? This question, it is agreed, is covered by the judgment of this court in the assessee s own case, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 3) v. CIT 1989 175 ITR 220, and, following that judgment, it has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. It is so answered.
-
1991 (11) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company ... ... ... ... ..... e strategic target may not be, however, the practical aim in a year or years. Further, profit is a perpetual variable, an immeasurable uncertainty profit or loss depends on various factors. There may be huge profit in one year and similarly a huge loss in another. No part of the remuneration or salary can be disallowed merely on the ground that the company has suffered a huge loss in an accounting year. It cannot be said that the provisions of section 40(c) authorise the taxing authorities to vary the remuneration With every fluctuation of profit to which profit elementally is prone to. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the Tribunal s findings that the salaries paid to the four directors were excessive are perverse. We accordingly, answer questions Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in the negative and question No. 2 in the affirmative and all in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1991 (11) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Firm, Interest Paid By Firm To Partner ... ... ... ... ..... which a stranger could have done. If a joint Hindu family, through the agency of its karta, can enter into contractual relations either with a stranger or even with an individual coparcenar in respect of his separate property and also with a firm, there cannot be any reason why a karta, although a partner of a firm representing his undivided family cannot invest his separate property in that firm and earn interest therefrom which he could have easily done by investing it in another firm where he is not a partner. For the reasons aforesaid, the first question in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The second question is answered by saying that Explanation 2 to section 40(b) is clarificatory in nature and will govern the assessment year in question and as such the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of interest paid to the partners in their individual capacity. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (11) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reference To Valuation Officer, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... cation fails and is dismissed. The copy of the affidavit in opposition is not traceable in the records before me and accordingly a photostat copy handed over by Mr. Shome shall be countersigned by the court officer and kept on the record. It is made clear that whatever has been said in this matter has been said only with regard to the propriety of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Wealth-tax Officer in the matter of reference of the valuation to the Valuation Officer. The Valuation Officer shall be completely free to accept or not to accept the report of Dr. Ashoke Nain and the Valuation Officer shall deal with all other contentions of the assessee as well as of the Department as may be put forward by them and the valuation matter shall be thus disposed of in accordance with law and all the points in that regard are kept open. A prayer for stay has been made and opposed. I do not think that this case calls for a stay as only the process of assessment is now being made free.
-
1991 (11) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Business Expenditure, Company, Debentures, Disallowance, Share ... ... ... ... ..... e expenditure incurred on repairs and insurance of motor cars cannot be considered for disallowance under sub-section (3A) of section 37 of the Act. This question came up for consideration in Income-tax Reference No. 87 of 1990 (CIT v. Molins of India Ltd.). There, this court held that section 37(13 covers any expenditure not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36. Therefore, the prohibition, restriction or limitation as contained in sections 37(3A) and 37(2B) cannot have any manner of application to the expenditure allowable otherwise and allowed under sections 30 to 36. In our view, the expenditure allowable under section 31 cannot come within the purview of section 37(3A). Only such expenditure which falls under section 37 can be brought within the net of restriction made in section 37(2B). We, therefore, answer the third question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1991 (11) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law, Set Off, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... matter back to the Income-tax Officer with a direction to examine the issue in the light of the aforesaid decision. On a second appeal preferred by the Department against the remand order, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no alternative to the Income-tax Officer than to allow the unabsorbed depreciation. The appeal of the Department was unsuccessful. The Department filed an application under section 256(1) on the ground that the Department had not accepted the correctness of the said decision and that a special leave petition had been filed before the Supreme Court against the said judgment. We have heard Shri Chandurkar, learned standing counsel for the Department. He fairly brought to our notice a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT 1991 189 ITR 512 recording approval to the aforesaid decision. Under the circumstances, we see no reason to entertain this application. It is dismissed without issuing notice.
-
1991 (11) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Gift Tax Act, Quoted Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... fresh assessment of the value of the shares on the basis of the yield method. The Commissioner of Gift-tax ultimately accepted the valuation of the assessee adopted on the yield method. Against that order, a second appeal was filed by the Department which was dismissed on the ground that the point stood directly concluded by the Bombay High Court in the case of Seth Hemant Bhagubhai Mafatlal v. N. Rama Iyer, GTO 1983 144 ITR 737, which, to some extent, is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia 1980 122 ITR 38. In view of the undisputed position that the companies were going concerns not ripe for liquidation and there were no exceptional circumstances about them, the ratio of the Bombay High Court decision clearly applied. Under the circumstances, rightly has the Tribunal refused to make a reference on the ground of existence of the above binding decisions. These applications are, therefore, dismissed summarily without issuing rule.
-
1991 (11) TMI 3 - SC ORDER
This is not a fit case for interference under article 136 of the Constitution for the simple reason that the amount which is being claimed as deduction by the assessee had already been allowed to him in 1960-61. Virtually, what he is seeking in this appeal is the deduction for the same amount in 1961-62. The claim is unequitable and uncalled for. In the circumstances, the civil appeal is dismissed
-
1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the income derived by the Radhasoami Satsang, a religious institution, is entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 - Held, yes
-
1991 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Development Rebate - whether an assessee manufacturing iron rods and girders out of iron scrap would be entitled to the higher development rebate - assessee cited a circular of the Board that, under item No. 2 of the Schedule, the higher development rebate would be available to an assessee who manufactured articles from aluminum scrap [vide Circular No. 25D (XIX-16) - though articles produced only from iron scrap, rebate is entitled to assessee
....
|
