|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 274 of 274 Records
-
1990 (1) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... be taken to be plant which was eligible for relief under section 32(1)(iii) and decided that it was so eligible. Alternatively, the Tribunal considered whether the incomplete railway siding could be treated as building even if it could not be treated as plant. The Tribunal held that the alternative argument had also great force and the siding could be treated as a building. Therefore, even if the Department succeeds in this reference and the question is answered by saying that the Tribunal was wrong in treating the railway siding as a plant, the decision of the Tribunal that it was a building within the meaning of section 32(1)(iii) will remain. It has not been explained by the Revenue why any question has not been raised as to the correctness of the alternative finding of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, answering the only question raised will be academic. We decline to answer the question. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
-
1990 (1) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... 64 ITR 730 held that where the Tribunal, on a review of the evidence that was on record, came to the conclusion that the cash credits had been proved and deleted the additions and no question of perversity had been raised by the Department, the question of discharge of onus was always a question of fact and whether the High Court agreed with the finding of fact made by the Tribunal or not was not material. In this particular case no question of the perversity of the findings made by the Tribunal has been raised. The Tribunal held that the assessee was able to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the cash credits concerned. The Tribunal had come to a conclusion based on evidence on record. In that view of the matter and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court as also this court, both questions of law in this reference must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J. -I agree.
-
1990 (1) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Exemptions, Marketing ... ... ... ... ..... until they are in the hands of the ultimate consumer . It has to be noted significantly that Venkataramaiah J., as he then was, observed that (at P. 713). The marketing functions involve exchange functions such as buying and selling, physical functions such as storage, transportation, processing and other commercial functions such as standardisation, financing, market intelligence, etc. It is difficult for us to hold that marketing includes only selling particularly in view of the provision that what is exempted is the profit and gains of the business activity of marketing . In this view, we have to hold that the order of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of as above. 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 (1) TMI 11 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Benami Property - Orissa Land Reforms Act
... ... ... ... ..... w, the Orissa land reforms authorities have the jurisdiction to examine the real character of a transaction even if the real transferee disclaims to be the real owner. The revisional authority has given no finding with regard to the nature of the transaction, but has only allowed the revision, holding that the Orissa land reforms, authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the real nature of the sale deed. In that view of the matter, the judgment of tile revisional authority cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Since the revisional authority as the final court of fact has given no finding on the nature of the transaction, after quashing annexure-1, the order of the revisional authority, opposite party No. 3, the matter is remanded to the revisional authority to give a finding on the nature of the sale deed dated August 25, 1975, and to proceed in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. G. B. PATNAIK J. - I agree.
-
1990 (1) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... Harakchand Makanji and Co. v. CIT 1948 16 ITR 119,123 (Bom), CIT v. Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd. 1950 18 ITR 333, 340 (Mad) and Kapurthala Northern India Tanneries Ltd. v. State of Punjab 1975 35 STC 375 (P and H). In so far as the Appellate Tribunal has not forwarded a proper statement of the case with all details and has also not included even the vital documents as enclosures in the paper book, we are not in a position to answer the questions referred to us. We, therefore, decline to answer the questions referred to us in both these references. We would only add that it is open to the Appellate Tribunal, if it is so inclined, to draw up a proper statement of the case and forward the same along with all essential and material documents and papers relied on by it in the appeals. The reference is disposed of accordingly. 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 (1) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Business Expenditure, Export Market Development Allowance, Gratuity, Insurance Commission, New Industrial Undertaking, Priority Industry, Special Deduction, Weighted Deduction
-
1990 (1) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Speculation Business ... ... ... ... ..... could not be delivered and a claim for damages was settled by payment. But, in the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to show that there was a dispute between the purchaser and the seller which was settled after breach of the contract. It has not been even explained why delivery was not given pursuant to the contract for purchase on September 20, 1973. It is for the assessee to bring on record the facts to establish that there was a breach of contract for which there were claims for damages and, ultimately, the matter was settled by payment. The transactions in question bear all the characteristics of a speculative transaction and the contracts were settled without delivery of goods. Therefore, the questions are answered as follows Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 4 is 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 (1) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Export Market Development Allowance, Gratuity, Provision For Gratuity, Remuneration, Weighted Deduction
-
1990 (1) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Failure To File Return, Loss, Reassessment, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... n away by issuing a notice under section 148. In the instant case, when the notices under section 148 were issued on May 12, 1975, the assessee could still file the return Of loss. The issuance of the notice under section 148 cannot destroy that right of the assessee to file a claim for loss to be computed and carried forward. Such a construction of the provision of section 148 should be avoided. On a similar provision under the Wealth-tax Act, this court also held in the case of M. P. Jalan v. CWT (Matter No. 113 of 1981 judgment dated December 22, 1989 ), that the assessee in a reassessment proceeding under the Wealth-tax Act was entitled to claim deduction in accordance with law. The Income-tax Officer could not ignore a return lawfully filed and had to make assessment on the basis of the return filed. In that view of the matter, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (1) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Income Tax Act, Tax Deducted ... ... ... ... ..... treated as something apart from and independent of various agricultural activities that have taken place for producing tea. The planting and nurturing of the trees were done for protection of the tea bushes and were inextricably linked up with the process of agricultural operations undertaken for production of tea. Therefore, the income derived from the sale of the trees in the instant case will be clearly, agricultural. In my judgment, the amount of Rs. 4,80,744 derived from sale of timber in the instant case was agricultural income and was not assessable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to express any opinion on whether the amount could be treated as capital gain or not. Therefore, the question referred is answered by saying that the amount of Rs. 4,80,744 was agricultural income within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (1) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ee, drew our attention to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. A. P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. 1989 175 ITR 361. In that case in the course of the business activities, the assessee was receiving and disbursing funds including Government funds. Necessarily there was certain interval between the receipt of funds and their disbursement. Instead of keeping the amount in its own custody, the assessee kept it in a bank. Evidently, the object was not to earn interest. It was only a mode of keeping the funds. In that case, the assessee was a public limited company set up by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to encourage and stimulate industrial development in the State. The principle laid down in the case of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. S. C. SEN J. - I agree.
-
1990 (1) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uch as section 69 has no manner of application on the facts and circumstances of the case but section 69 has application in the case of unexplained investment made by the assessee which are not recorded in the books of account. The assessee supplied the goods after incurring certain cost and after manufacturing the goods and the amount that was received from the Defence Department could not represent the net income but it was the sum received including the profit and expenditure. In this reference, the finding made by the Tribunal has not been challenged and no question of perversity has been raised and, as such, the findings made by the Tribunal in this behalf could not be interfered with by the High Court in a reference and we do not find anything wrong in the order of the Tribunal in this regard. Accordingly, the question of law in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J. -I agree.
-
1990 (1) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... issue in various forums. The definition of the words regular assessment has been given in section 2(40) of the Act which is as follows (40) regular assessment means the assessment made under section 143 or section 144 But the question is whether this definition can be extended to include assessments made to give effect to appellate orders is not very clear. This is a point on which there may possibly be two opinions and it is very difficult to give a correct interpretation of the section. Therefore, in our view, when the meaning of the expression regular assessment is in dispute, the rectification proceedings would not have started for granting in the consequential order passed by the Income-tax Officer after the appellate proceedings. Question No. 1 is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In view of the answer given to the first question, the second question need not be answered. There will no order as to costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J. -In agree.
-
1990 (1) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... to predicate that the dividends would ordinarily be paid out from the current income rather than from past savings, unless the board of directors, in their report, expressly or specifically state that the payment of dividend would be made from past savings. If the dividends have to be paid out from past savings which have been credited to a reserve fund, then the reserve fund would stand diminished by the amount of the dividend. Similarly, if the available current profits are utilised for payment of dividend, then that amount of profit which would ultimately be paid out by way of dividend cannot be treated as a part of the capital of the company. Viewed from any angle, the amount which was paid out by way of dividend cannot be treated as a part of the capital before the amount was actually paid out. Therefore, the question in this particular case is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
....
|
