|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 219 of 219 Records
-
1990 (6) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Jewellery, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... f this court s decision in the case of CWT v. Smt. Godavaribai R. Podar 1988 169 ITR 245, the word jewellery as used in the said clause (viii) of section 5(1) of the Wealthtax Act, 1957, cannot, for the period prior to April 1, 1972, be held to include within its embrace ornaments made of gold or silver or platinum or other precious metal or alloy thereof which do not contain precious or semi-precious stone or stones. Since the assessment years involved herein are assessment years prior to the assessment year 1972-73, the question of law is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessees. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accounting, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... of the outstanding fees of the firm of M/s. C. M. Shah and Co., Chartered Accountants, estimated at Rs. 75,000 ? It is accepted by both the sides that the decision in the case of CWT v. V. M. Shah 1988 170 ITR 17 (Bom) governs this case, as also our decisions in Wealth-tax Reference No. 168 of 1976 (CWT v. Vasantlal D. Mehta 1990 186 ITR 284) along with Wealth-tax Reference No. 92 of 1975 (CWT v. K. T. Divecha 1990 186 ITR 310 delivered by us on June 11, 1990. We would like to clarify that income tax liability on outstanding fees cannot be considered as an accrued liability in a case where the professional has kept his accounts on cash basis for the purpose of income-tax as set out in our above judgment. The questions are, accordingly, answered as follows Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 4 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 5 in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Gift ... ... ... ... ..... ith the firm in which the deceased was a partner. It was the case of the Department that the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were attracted and, therefore, these two amounts were includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty confirmed the inclusion, whereas, observing that the facts and rival contentions were on all fours with those in the case of CED v. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder 1973 88 ITR 448 (SC), the Tribunal held that these amounts were not includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased under section 10 of the Act. There being no dispute about the facts, the Supreme Court decision in CED v. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder 1973 88 ITR 448 (SC), which has been recently followed by the Supreme Court in the case of N. K. Sanghi v. CED 1988 172 ITR 413, is squarely applicable. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in the negative and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... terms of rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ? It is an accepted position that questions (i) and (ii) which are at the instance of the assessee are governed by the ratio laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. N. C. Upadhya 1980 124 ITR 799. Accordingly, question No. (i) at the instance of the assessee is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Regarding question No. (ii) at the instance of the assessee, the shares ought to have been valued at Rs. 175 per share as per the valuation made by the approved valuer. Question No. (iii) at the instance of the assessee need not be answered in view of our answer to questions Nos. (i) and (ii). It is also an accepted position that the question raised at the instance of the Commissioner is covered by a decision of this court in the case of CWT v. Pratap Bhogilal 1987 167 ITR 501. The question is, accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... aluation date and so it was not includible in her net wealth was rightly rejected ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant had any interest in the corpus of the Bhabha Trust on the relevant valuation date ? Wealth-tax Reference No. 74 of 1976 (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee had any interest in the trust corpus on the relevant valuation date ? (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, whether the same was includible in the net wealth of the assessee ? It is agreed between the parties that similar questions were answered in favour of the Revenue in Wealth-tax Reference No. 7 of 1971 (Shri B. K. Dubash v. CWT) by a Division Bench (Chandurkar J., as he then was, and Sawant J., as he then was) of this court by its judgment dated March 26, 1980. In view thereof both the questions in each reference are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... t s judgment in the assessee s own case in Incometax Reference No. 174 of 1973 dated October 1, 1981, it has to be held that the income of the assessee is exempt under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Once that is so, it has to be further held in view of section 45 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, that no gift-tax can be levied under the Act. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 13 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... der clause (b). As stated earlier, this aspect has been specifically considered by the Tribunal. It found that though the proceedings for reassessment were initiated under section 17(1)(a) of the Act, proceedings cannot be sustained under that provision as the assessee has not committed any default in furnishing all the basic and primary facts. Therefore, on the basis that there was valid information regarding a higher value of the building property, proceedings for reassessment could be taken under section 17(1)(b) for which the period of limitation was four years and, in the present case, as the reopening was done within the period of four years from the date of assessment orders, which was April 2, 1976, it was competent for the authorities to complete the reassessment under section 17(1)(b) of the Act and that has been done in this case. In the result, we make the following order We answer the question referred for our opinion in the affirmative and against the assessee.
-
1990 (6) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ave to understand the question referred to us as stating, whether, in the light of the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that there is a mistake apparent from the records, the proceedings under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, were valid in law ? In so far as the finding of fact made by the Appellate Tribunal that there is a mistake apparent from the records is not challenged, the only further question is whether, on the findings recorded, the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal is valid in law. On that, there can be no doubt that if there is a mistake apparent on the records, section 35 was validly invoked. In the circumstances, we have to answer the question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Both the references are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 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 (6) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Accrual, Income ... ... ... ... ..... 76. The assessee shall produce a copy of the judgment rendered in L. A. A. No. 247 of 1980 before the concerned Wealth-tax Officer. He shall give effect to the said judgment as directed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and as affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. It is open to the assessee to raise all his pleas regarding the determination of the net wealth as on the respective valuation dates. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in a modified form. In the light of the subsequent judgment of this court in L. A. A. No. 247 of 1980 dated January 28, 1987, the Wealth-tax Officer shall amend the assessments accordingly. The direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal is valid. In this perspective, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1990 (6) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Business, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... business carried on by an assessee are found to constitute one and the same business due to interlacing, interconnection, etc., and one of them is closed, the expenditure in relation to such closed business is deductible from the profits of the continuing business or businesses. Outgoings of this nature are allowed not as a deduction or as allowance but as a component inherent in the process of ascertainment of profits, namely, arriving at the net result of credits and debits referable to particular activity of the business. Thus, considering the facts appearing in this case in the light of the decisions cited supra, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the abovesaid two additions made by the Department in the assessment years under consideration. In that view of the matter, we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1990 (6) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Beneficiaries Unknown, Representative Assessee, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... d Explanation clearly applies to the instant case. In view of such an Explanation, the benefit of section 164 could not be obtained unless the beneficiary was known and determinate. In the instant case, the beneficiary was the would be wife of Atreya Lakhotia. In the instant case, it is not a fact that the marriage has been fixed and the would be wife is identifiable. The trust deed provides that the trust was for the benefit of the would-be wife who was not in existence when the trust was created and there was no certainty that such a marriage would ever take place to fulfil the object of the trust. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal was wholly wrong in holding that the said trust was for the benefit of individuals who are determinate and known and, as such section 164(1) is not attracted. Accordingly, this question of law is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J. -I agree.
-
1990 (6) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Ambiguity, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... the deceased. Mr. Jetley very fairly drew our attention to the case of CED v. R. Kanakasabai 1973 89 ITR 251 in which case the Supreme Court said that, in a case where the deceased had, during his lifetime, executed separate deeds settling properties in favour of beneficiaries absolutely and with full power of alienation, without creating any charge on such properties, such properties were not liable to be included in the estate of the deceased passing on his death. The Supreme Court also observed that, where the taxing provision is ambiguous and is reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, that interpretation which is beneficial to the assessee must be adopted. Accordingly, we answer the following question, viz Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, one-third share of the deceased, Smt. N. A. Gandhi, in the Ghodbunder Road property passed on the death of the said deceased ? in the negative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... hese prosecutions will not be maintainable. I am afraid this contention cannot be accepted at this stage, for, setting aside of the assessment order does not always affect the prosecution, unless there is a specific finding that the statements made by the assessee were true. Such a finding is not apparent in the order in revision and if any advantage is to enure in favour of the petitioners, it will be open to them to get on record such evidence as may be helpful to them to substantiate this aspect. The last contention which has also to be necessarily negatived relates to the non-feasibility of these prosecutions in view of penalty proceedings having been initiated. The law permits a prosecution to co-exist. None of these grounds help the petitioners. I find no merit in these petitions which are, accordingly, dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioners to urge these contentions after evidence is brought on record for a proper consideration by the trial magistrate.
-
1990 (6) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appropriated towards the outstanding income-tax liability of the petitioner except one draft for Rs. 2,500 which, I am told, now has been returned to the petitioner. However, it is no use returning the draft for Rs. 2,500 to the petitioner at this point of time because the same became invalidated. The invalidation of the draft to the extent of Rs. 2,500 was purely on account of the lapse on the part of the officers of the Income-tax Department and, therefore , the respondents are liable to refund a sum of Rs. 2,500 towards the invalidated draft to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I find no substance in this writ petition except that a direction be issued to the respondents herein to refund an amount of Rs. 2,500 to the petitioner. Except for this direction, the writ petition fails and the same stands rejected. Rule is, accordingly, discharged but with no order as to costs. The respondents are directed to pay Rs. 2,500 to the petitioner within two weeks from today.
-
1990 (6) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Trade Union ... ... ... ... ..... Cal), where it was held that the Indian Sugar Mills Association, though registered under the Trade Unions Act having some objects dealing with and regulating the terms and conditions regulating the employment and also good relations between employers and employees was not an association formed primarily for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and employers or between workmen and workmen, as was evident from its rules and regulations. The association of employers was only set up entirely for the protection of the interests of its members. Therefore, the association was not entitled to exemption under section 10(24) of the Act. Having regard to the various objects of the Indian Jute Mills Association, we are of the view that the decision taken by the Tribunal in the instant case is fully justified. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.
-
1990 (6) TMI 4 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Business Expenditure, Investment Allowance, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... further held that the Tribunal was justified in affording relief to the assessee herein under section 80J of the Act. In the light of the earlier Bench decision in the case of the very same assessee in I.T.R. Nos. 124 and 125 of 1986(see 1992 197 ITR 93), we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative-against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire business of the assessee is eligible for the allowance under section 80J of the Act. As a sequel to our answer to question No. 2, we answer question No. 3 also in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We hold that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the diesel generator and transformer under section 32A of the Income-tax Act. Question No.1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered, as above.
-
1990 (6) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Precedents, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... e-tax Officer can not reopen the assessment on a mere change of opinion in respect of the materials already on the record and in respect of the materials which were considered by the Income-tax Officer at the time of the original assessment. On the basis of mere change of opinion, an assessment could not be reopened under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, in our view, the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the proceedings were initiated validly on the basis of valid materials. We are of the view that the condition precedent for reopening the assessment under section 147(b) of the Act was wholly absent in the instant case and accordingly the reassessment proceedings could not be said to have been validly initiated. Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of our answer to question No. 1, questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 need not be answered. There will be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J. -I agree.
-
1990 (6) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... he petitioner claimed that it was his personal income. It is obvious that the petitioner was making deliberate, misleading and false statements to keep the proceedings pending with a view to avoid civil and criminal liabilities. Surely, a person seeking immunity for suppressing income cannot enjoy this liberty with the Settlement Commission. Shri Kapadia tried to rely upon certain documents produced before the Settlement Commission to urge that the petitioner had disclosed sufficient material. It is impossible to accede to the submission. The Settlement Commission was not at all satisfied with the disclosures and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was more interested in suppressing the material than disclosing it. The finding recorded by the Settlement Commission does not suffer from any infirmity. In my judgment, the challenge to the order passed by the Settlement Commission is without any merit and the petition must fail. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs.
-
1990 (6) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Donation For Charitable Purposes, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ins the same. There is no addition or alteration to the profit making apparatus. The total funds available with the company will remain the same. As a result of the issue of bonus shares, there will be no change in the capital structure of the company. Therefore, the questions are answered as follows Question No. 1 in R. A. No. 916/(Cal) of 1986 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 1 in R. A. No. 962/(Cal) of 1986 is answered by saying that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,500 representing fees paid in connection with the application to raise the authorised share capital, but the Tribunal was, however, right in holding that Rs. 500 representing the application fees paid for issue of bonus shares were not capital expenditure. Question No. 2 in R. A. No. 962/(Cal) of 1986 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
....
|
