|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 217 of 217 Records
-
1993 (11) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... if commercial principles for determining the income are applied, it is but natural that the adjustment of the expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier year against income earned by the trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of income of the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which such adjustment has been made having regard to the benevolent provisions contained in section 11 of the Act and will have to be excluded from the income of the trust under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to carry forward expenses for set off in the subsequent year. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (11) TMI 16 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Income Tax Act, Mercantile System, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1993 (11) TMI 15 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Bona Fide, Depreciation And Development Rebate, Income Tax Act, Levy Of Penalty, Plant And Machinery
-
1993 (11) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Diversion Of Income, Income By Overriding Title, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... below. That being so, we hold that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in including Rs. 72,000 as the assessee s house property income as, in our opinion, the said sum did not form part of the assessee s income by virtue of the agreements entered into by the assessee with each of the three lessees dated June 15, 1971. The Tribunal was correct in taking the view that it was not a case where the assessee could be said to have received the entire rent as its income before it parted with it in favour of the lessees so as to constitute application of income. It cannot be said that the interpretation of the agreement dated June 15, 1971, by the Tribunal was erroneous or improper. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the said sum of Rs. 72,000 did not form part of the assessee s income. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. --I agree.
-
1993 (11) TMI 13 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Charitable And Religious Purposes, Charitable Institution, Charitable Trust, Exclusion From Exemption
-
1993 (11) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Hindu Succession Act, Income From Property, Income Of Individual ... ... ... ... ..... u undivided family of which H.H. Rajendrasinghji was the karta and was not the income of H.H. Rajendrasinghji as an individual for the assessment year 1963-64. For the assessment years 1964-65 to 1971-72 and the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1976- 77 the income arising from this property was the income of a Hindu undivided family of which H.H. Raghubirsinghji was the karta to the extent that this income arose from his interest in the said property derived by virtue of his membership of the Hindu undivided family of H.H. Rajendrasinghji as a coparcener. The income arising from this property to the extent that the income arose from his interest in the property as an heir of H.H. Rajendrasinghji under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was the income of H.H. Raghubirsinghji as an individual. (2) We answer the question in the estate duty reference in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (11) TMI 11 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Assessment, Levy Of Penalty, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... ecision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is, therefore, clear that Jain Brothers case 1970 77 ITR 107 (SC) is not an authority for the proposition of interpretation of the provisions contained in section 271(1)(a), vis-a-vis, section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, as noticed hereinbefore, in Onkar Saran s case 1992 195 ITR 1 (SC), the point at issue has specifically been dealt with and this court is bound by the said decision. For the reasons aforementioned, the Tribunal was justified in law in passing its order as contained in annexure 2 to the application for reference. The question posed therefore is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, in view of the fact that nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench. S. N. JHA J.--I agree. AFTAB ALAM J.--I agree.
-
1993 (11) TMI 10 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Authorities ... ... ... ... ..... the consideration amount. It does not mention how Rs. 1,10,000 was repaid by the Hindu undivided family to the assessee-company. Clause (2) of the deed indicates only the mutual agreement and settlement of claim of the Hindu undivided family for the alleged unlawful use and occupation by the assessee-company. Clause (3) of the deed indicates the mutual agreement, and settlement of the claim to mutual satisfaction of the parties in respect of the alleged unlawful use and occupation. Therefore, the deed of release does not show consideration. For these reasons, the deed of release does not operate as transfer or conveyance. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deed of release was not lawful for the purpose of a taxing statute. In that view of the matter, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the court will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal.
-
1993 (11) TMI 9 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Seized Assets ... ... ... ... ..... the first sentence of sub-section (1) of the said section starts with the words The assets retained under subsection (5) of section 132 may be dealt with in the following manner The wor retained in is section means the seized assets retained after the order is passed under sub-section (5) of section 132 and for which no explanation could be given by the person from whose custody these Were seized. Therefore, I hold that section 132B shall not apply to seized assets for which a proper explanation has been given by the person from whom such assets were seized. In the case on hand also section 132B shall not apply for which direction has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner under sub-section (5) of section 132 of the Act. In view of what has been stated above, let a writ of mandamus be issued directing the authorities to forthwith release the seized property for which explanation has been given by the writ petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
1993 (11) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
High Court, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... to have been directed to file a writ petition in this court or before the Supreme Court. No such writ petition was filed by the assessee. We are informed by learned counsel of both the sides that several High Courts have now taken the view that section 140A(3) of the Act is valid. Learned counsel for the assessee has invited the attention of the court to the judgment of this court in the case of CWT v. Devidayal Stainless Steel India P. Ltd. 1991 189 ITR 506 to which one of us (Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar J.) was a party. In this judgment, our court considered the decisions of various High Courts on the subject upholding the validity of the abovereferred section. Following the ratio of the decision of this court in the abovereferred case in CWT v. Devidayal Stainless Steel India P. Ltd. 1991 189 ITR 506, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (11) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... to the sale. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under section 54F. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly negatived this contention and has held that the new residential house had been purchased by the assessee within two years after the sale of the capital asset which resulted in long-term capital gains. The Tribunal has held that the relevant date in this connection is July 29, 1988, when the petitioner paid the full consideration amount on the flat becoming ready for occupation and obtained possession of the flat. This has been taken by the Tribunal as the date of purchase. The Tribunal has looked at the substance of the transaction and come to the conclusion that the purchase was substantially effected when the agreement of purchase was carried out or completed by payment of full consideration on July 29, 1988, and handing over of possession of the flat on the next day. In the premises, the application is dismissed and the rule is discharged with costs.
-
1993 (11) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... essee has relied upon the ratio of this judgment and has submitted that the ratio of this judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The view taken by the Tribunal to the effect that the Revenue had failed to discharge its onus to prove concealment of income is certainly a reasonably possible view. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio of the abovereferred decision, we have reached the conclusion that no case is made out by the Revenue with the decision of the Tribunal and the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is a finding of fact. The assumption of concealment of income made in questions Nos. 2 and 3 referred to us is without any factual basis. No penalty could be imposed on the assessee merely on the basis of the abovereferred offer of settlement, i.e., letter dated March 5, 1986, read with the letter dated December 7, 1982. The application made by the Revenue herein fails. The rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (11) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ation for the purpose of managing an estate, in which they have acquired certain shares by reason of the will left by their father/grandfather. Therefore, the case does not satisfy the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in G. Murugesan and Bros. v, CIT 1973 88 ITR 432 referred to in K. MD. Iqbal v. State of Tamil Nadu 1992 1 MTCR 608 (Mad). Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal is right in holding that the son and grandsons of the testator who have got an undivided share in the estate under the will, cannot be held to have voluntarily come forward to form an association with the object of producing income and make profits or gains and share the same. But for the will they could not have acquired a one-fifth share each. Therefore, they can only be considered as tenants-in-common, each having a definite share as per the terms of the will. Hence, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal does not call for interference. Accordingly, the tax cases are rejected.
-
1993 (11) TMI 4 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Waiver Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Commissioner s order is based on reasons which are not germane to the requirement of the section. The conclusion reached by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax that the imposition of penalty does not have the effect of genuine hardship to the petitioner is based on the fact which should have been taken to be in favour of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, we quash the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (annexure- D ) dated January 19, 1984, and direct the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Jabalpur, to reconsider the application of the petitioner filed on April 1, 1981, under section 18B(4) of the Wealth-tax Act in accordance with law and keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove. Looking to the pendency of the matter for a considerably long period we direct that the matter shall be decided within the period of two months from today. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The security amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded.
-
1993 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant-assessee made a false statement regarding the income which according to the assessing authority has escaped assessment - since finding of ITO that assessee made a false statement had been set aside by tribunal, Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained
-
1993 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Deduction From Long Term Capital Gains - held that before allowing relief u/s 80T, Long term capital loss brought forward from earlier years should be set off first
-
1993 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Tribunal was justified in investigating the nature of the shares held by the assessee when both the assessee and the income-tax authorities had treated them as the stock-in-trade of the assessee as a dealer in shares for every assessment year since 1949-50 and proceeded on the same basis for the instant assessment year - Whether Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the shares held by the assessee were not its stock-in-trade for dealing in shares
....
|
