|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 218 of 218 Records
-
1985 (12) TMI 18 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... so clearly lays down that nothing contained in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 187 shall apply to a case where the firm is dissolved on the death of any of its partners. It is rightly not disputed that this proviso squarely applies to the present case. This being so, two separate assessments had to be made for the relevant year 1975-76 one for the period up to May I 1, 1974, and the other for the period subsequent to that date. On similar facts, this was the view taken also in CIT v. Jasumal Devandas 1985 156 ITR 551 (MP). It must, therefore, be held that the view taken by the Tribunal is justified. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as under (i) The Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Income-tax Officer to make two separate assessments for the two periods. (ii) This question does not arise. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (12) TMI 17 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to an accused tried for violation of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The order of the learned trial Magistrate thus allowing probation to respondent No. 2 against the express provisions of the statute is illegal and cannot be sustained. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate are in clear violation of the statutory provisions of section 292A of the Income-tax Act and being illegal, amount to misuse of process of law. These orders cannot be permitted to stand. The petitions are accepted. The orders of the learned Magistrate regarding the granting of probation to respondent No. 2 and of the Sessions judge rejecting the revision as impugned in these petitions are quashed. The cases are remitted to the learned trial Magistrate for passing proper sentence in accordance with the provisions of law. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to put in appearance before the trial Magistrate on February 7, 1986.
-
1985 (12) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... discharge of the decree debt in OS No. 254 of 1956 was stated to have come from that company. It is in these circumstances that no separate question is referred to this court in TC No. 76 of 1977 and the respondent in this case is only interested in the answer relating to the second question in TC Nos. 77 to 79 of 1977. In view of this, the answer relating to the second question already given will cover this case also. There will be no order as to costs in this case. For the reasons stated in TC Nos. 77 to 79 of 1977, the decision given in those cases will cover the questions in TC Nos. 1354 and 1355 of 1977 also, since the matters are related and same questions as have been referred in TC Nos. 77 to 79 of 1977 have been referred in TC Nos. 1354 and 1355 of 1977 also. Accordingly, TC Nos. 1354 and 1355 of 1977 are disposed of with reference to the answers given to the two questions referred in TC Nos. 77 to 79 of 1977. There will be no order as to costs in these cases also.
-
1985 (12) TMI 15 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ct, which provides for an appeal against an order refusing registration under section 185(5) of the Act. It was only after the Income-tax Officer, by a subsequent order dated September 10, 1976, had granted registration on the same facts without even referring to the earlier order refusing registration against which an appeal was pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee withdrew that appeal. There can thus be no doubt that the order dated February 12, 1976, was the Income-tax Officer s order refusing registration under section 185(5) of the Act, as rightly held by the Tribunal. Consequently, the reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue as under The Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer, dated February 12, 1976, refusing registration had been passed under section 185(5) of the Act. The Revenue shall get costs of this reference from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 200, if certified.
-
1985 (12) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... on. We should also keep in mind that wide and extensive powers are conferred in the matter of search and seizure under section 132 and the only safeguard available to a citizen against arbitrary exercise of that power is the procedural safeguards provided therein. The satisfaction of the Director of Inspection under section 132 itself may not be assailable and it may be contended that it is subjective satisfaction and therefore, a strict compliance with the procedural formalities is a sine qua non for the validity of the orders. We have already noticed that the provisions of section 132 had not been complied with and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the rule nisi is made absolute. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (rupees five hundred only). Writ Appeal No. 999 of 1985 In view of the order in the writ petition, no orders are necessary in the writ appeal.
-
1985 (12) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... ncome in the hands of the recipient charitable society, the assessee, and fell outside the provision of section 12(1) of the Income-tax Act, 196 I., as it stood prior to its amendment. (d) Sukhdeo Charity Estate, Ladnu v. CIT 1984 149 ITR 470 (Raj). In this case, the decisions of the Allahabad, Kerala and Delhi High Courts were approved by the Rajasthan High Court in a case the facts whereof were similar to those of the case decided by the Allahabad High Court. In the case before us, the Tribunal has found that the donation of shares was specifically given in order to augment the corpus of the assessee and not being spent for the purpose of the assessee. This finding has not been challenged and has become final. We do not see any reason to take view different from that taken by the other High Courts and with respect we follow the same. We answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. MUKUL GOPAL MUKHERJI J.-I agree.
-
1985 (12) TMI 12 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... inference would be that the said sum of Rs. 38,500 was income from undisclosed sources. There could be no other conclusion in that regard. The Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were all of the same view. In that view of the matter, there is no escape from the position that the Tribunal was absolutely correct in upholding the addition of Rs. 38,500 in the taxable income of the assessee. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue. We, therefore, hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 38,500 sustained in the assessment year 1969-70 was legal and valid. The reference is thus answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1985 (12) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... for overtime wages was that such a demand had been raised by the workmen. It was not shown that the liability arose during the relevent previous year under any statute, contract or adjudication of any Tribunal. The finding is that the workers demand of overtime wages had not been proved. This being the sole basis for claiming the deduction, there is no foundation for the claim and, therefore, the Tribunal s view, even on this point, cannot be assailed. Consequently, the reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue as under 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs. 16,905 and Rs. 518 spent on repairs of machinery, bhatta and chimneys, respectively, were not allowable as business expenditure. 2. The amount of Rs. 10,444, which was a provision made for overtime wages, could not be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income. The Revenue shall get its costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 200, if certified.
-
1985 (12) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... artment, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. Having heard learned counsel for the Department, we have come to the conclusion that the reference has to be answered in the affirmative and against the Department. It has been held by a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1983 140 ITR 818, that where a regular assessment of an employee had been completed and the amount of tax was fully paid by him, the Income-tax Officer (TDS) had no jurisdiction under section 201 of the Act to demand further tax from the employer in respect of the tax short-deducted relating to such employee. In view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1983 140 ITR 818 (MP), our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Department. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1985 (12) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... nother firm, which has as its partners one or more partners of the original firm, the case would be one covered by the provisions of section 187 of the Act as it would be merely a change in the constitution of the firm as defined by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 187 of the Act. This court further held that in the case of a change in the constitution of a firm during an accounting year, the income earned by the firm before the change has to be clubbed with the income earned after such change and a single assessment has to be made on the firm for the entire accounting period. In view of this decision of the Full Bench of this court, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was not justified in law in holding that two assessments should be made for the two separate periods. Our answer to the question referred to us is, therefore, in the negative and in favour of the Department. As none appeared on behalf of the assessee, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1985 (12) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the notice dated November 18, 1978, or November 24, 1978, issued under section 263 for the assessment year 1976-77 before the interim order was passed on November 28, 1978, the said order would stand set aside and the Commissioner concerned will pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In the event no such order was passed under section 263, the final order shall not be passed by the Commissioner before January 31, 1986. In the meanwhile, the proceedings shall continue and the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard. Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner will co-operate with the Department in this matter. The rule is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. It is recorded that Miss Aparna Dutta has since retired from the case and that Mrs. Dipti Bhattacharyya has filed a fresh power of attorney. That may be accepted by the Department.
-
1985 (12) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... d by us while disposing of this reference. It is clear that the assessee s contention of existence of sufficient cause to explain the delay in filing the return is also required to be considered and decided by the Tribunal on merits before deciding the question of penalty finally in appeal before it. This not having been done by the Tribunal so far, this is required to be done by it for the purpose of disposing of the second appeal before it on merits. This shall be done now as result of the decision of this reference. Consequently, the reference is answered in the Revenue s favour and against the assessee as under The Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the entire penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely on the ground of a mistake made by the Income-tax Officer in calculating the period of delay, without also deciding the question relating to existence of sufficient cause raised by the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (12) TMI 6 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the writ petition. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him. These decisions relate to a point which bad been successfully pressed before the Bench in the earlier writ petition. These decisions turn on the question as to whether the individual partner s name is mentioned in the recovery certificate or not. In both the cases, only the name of the firm was mentioned and not of the individual partners. Such is not the case in the present writ petition. In the present certificate, not only the name of the firm is mentioned, but the name of the petitioner partner is also mentioned. As to the question of limitation, it may be observed that the tax recovery is of the firm. Certificate No. 539, dated March 31, 1977, had been issued against the firm very much in time and the present action is only the continuation of that action. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine.
-
1985 (12) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, State Electricity Board ... ... ... ... ..... nce which has been made to answer the above questions of law. There is no dispute that the point for our decision is covered by an earlier decision between the same parties in M.C.C. No. 364 of 1975 dated October 19, 1981 (CIT v. M. P. State Electricity Board 1987 166 ITR 26 (MP) , wherein it was held that the assessee was covered by the first proviso to section 34(3)(a) of the Act and, therefore, exempt from providing and maintaining a development rebate reserve. On this view, the other question does not arise for decision. We have, therefore, to answer this reference following the earlier decision. Consequently, the reference is answered in the assessee s favour and against the Revenue as under The Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was covered by the first proviso to section 34(3)(a) of the Act and, therefore, exempt from providing and maintaining development rebate reserve. The assessee will get costs from the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs.200, if certified.
-
1985 (12) TMI 4 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Raid By Excise Department, Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... een imposed on the assessee by the Department, cannot be said to be excessive as Rs. 90,000 as penalty is the minimum as against concealment of income of Rs. 87,455. The maximum penalty could be Rs. 1,74,910. From the aforesaid discussion, we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee, as under The Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was the owner of the wrist watches and thus including the value thereof in the assessment of the assessee. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the Department has discharged its burden in view of the Explanation clause to section 271(1)(c) of the Act for establishing the concealment of income by the assessee in the assessment year under consideration and thus confirming the penalty of Rs. 90,000 levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Under the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs as incurred.
-
1985 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Inspection of the property - When the state claims the properties to be state property, inspection of the same has to be granted in a writ petition in order to determine the true ownership - inspection committee will complete the inspection and submit its report to the High Court within three months from the commencement thereof
-
1985 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Jurisdiction of the High Court to grant stay or pass interim orders in pending references under section 66 and section 256 - it cannot be said that the HC has inherent power or incidental power in the matter of a reference pending before it to grant stay of realisation or to grant injunction - therefore, the HC was in error in exercising its jurisdiction by passing an order for stay of realisation under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a pending reference
-
1985 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Delay in Filing Return - When the return to be filed under 1922 Act is filed under 1961 Act and the assessment is also made under the I.T. Act, 1961 - Tribunal was not justified in holding that penalty was leviable under the 1961 Act - High Court answered the reference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee - order of HC is justified - Penalty is to be levied under 1961 Act
....
|
