|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 316 of 316 Records
-
1991 (7) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... rovision to enable a charitable trust to meet the contingency where the fulfilment of any project within its object or objects needs heavy outlay to call for accumulation to amass sufficient money to implement it. Therefore, specification of purpose as required by section 11(2) admits of no amount of vagueness about such purpose. We, therefore, answer question No. 2 in the negative and we decline to answer question No. 1. We remand the matter to the Tribunal and the Tribunal will allow the assessee to adduce fresh evidence whether in the form of any resolution or otherwise showing that the specific purpose for which the trust requires the accumulation of the income exists and, if such resolution or evidence is placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal will consider whether the obligation cast on the assessee under section 11(2) has been discharged and the exemption, accordingly, may be granted to the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (7) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Excise Duty ... ... ... ... ..... lector. Accordingly, there is no demand of which any deduction could be claimed. Without going into the merits of the contention, we hold that inasmuch as the disputed demand did not survive in view of the ultimate finding of the Excise Tribunal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the excise duty demanded in a sum of Rs. 2,71,400 was allowable expenditure during the year under consideration. We have decided this reference on the peculiar facts of this case at the suggestion of the parties on the subsequent event that ultimately the disputed demand was found to be not an actual liability of the assessee. We have not decided this reference on legal principles whether such demand is allowable as deduction even though the demand was disputed and no provision was made. For the reasons aforesaid, the question in this reference is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (7) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Deduction, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... whether the amount could be claimed as a business expenditure in the year under reference on the basis of the assessment order passed in this year. We, however, agree with the learned counsel appearing for the assessee that the mere fact that the liability in question is being disputed by the assessee is no ground for disallowing the claim for deduction of such liability. We, therefore, decline to answer the second question and remand the matter to the Tribunal to make proper enquiries, ascertain the facts and redecide the issue in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the assessee as well as the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to place fresh evidence before the Tribunal. The third question is directly covered by the decision of this court in Molins of India Ltd. v. CIT 1983 144 ITR 317. Following the said decision, we answer the third question in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (7) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the dispute related to valuation of shares of a company to which rule 1D is applied in case further decision may be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of pension and gratuity liabilities. In the instant case also, the assessee has been able to show that pension and gratuity liabilities from the year ending March 31, 1977, and March 31, 1978, respectively, have been valued as per actuarial valuation. So, the valuation of these liabilities for each year on actuarial basis represents their present discounted value for each year. In the instant case, the approved valuer in his report has also taken into consideration pension and gratuity liabilities actuarially valued after verification and accepted the same for each year. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA J. -I agree.
-
1991 (7) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt has validated an invalid rule. That is not either the petitioner s case before us. The only question that remains to be decided is whether by reason of adopting a universal method of valuation for unquoted equity shares of all company whether profit-making or on the brink of liquidation, an unreasonable discrimination results. We do not see that there is any such discrimination. The Supreme Court in CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan 1972 86 ITR 621 has observed that if the restrictions on transfer of such shares are lifted, the value should be with reference to the assets. The fiction of an open market, a concept inlaid in section 7(1) creates another fiction, i.e., the lifting of such restrictions and, therefore, the asset-backing method has to hold sway. In that event, rule ID is unexceptionable and cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. For the foregoing reasons, this application fails. The rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.
-
1991 (7) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ed to in section 209A. In our view, on a plain reading of section 217(1A), it is apparent that the interest under this section can be charged if an estimate is not filed. The said provision has no application to a case where the statement as mentioned in section 209A is not sent by the assessee. In the light of the facts found and on the construction of section 217(1A), we are not called upon to go into the contention raised by Mr. Murarka, learned counsel for the assessee, that if the assessee had filed an estimate in lieu of the statement, he had satisfied the provisions of section 209A and, in such a situation, no interest under section 217 can at all be levied where interest had already been levied under sections 215 and 216. That is an issue unrelated to the questions to be answered. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer both the questions 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 (7) TMI 10 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Rs. 140 per square yard, he had applied that rate to the entire 4,696 square yards of land and determined the valuation of the land at Rs. 6,57,300. The other valuer, on whose report, reliance was sought to be placed by the Commissioner, had valued only 1,335.46 square metres of land at Rs. 200 per square metre, whereas the remaining 2,378.52 square metres of land has been valued at Rs. 10 per square metre and the total valuation of the land has been determined by the second valuer at Rs. 2,90,877.20. The Wealth-tax Officer having accepted the valuation of the first valuer, who had determined the land price at a much higher figure of Rs. 6,57,300 as compared to the valuation by the second valuer, who had determined the value of the land at Rs. 2,90,877.20, could not be said to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In these circumstances, in our opinion, no question of law arises and the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (7) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the income in the hands of the assessee who, under the agreement itself, obtained the possession and the right to run the tea estate and also to earn profit therefrom. Reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Ganga Properties Ltd. 1970 77 ITR 637 is misplaced. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee in this case. We, therefore, answer both the questions in this reference in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. It is stated by Dr. Pal that the same income has already been assessed in the hands of the transferor. In our view, the transferor will be entitled to the refund of the tax if the same income has been taxed in the hands of the transferor as well as in the hands of the transferee and if the tax has been realised from the transferor as well. It will be open to the transferor to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (7) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n such a case, it would have been proper for the authorities to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer for determination of the valuation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh determination of the valuation of the coffee estate taking into account the circular of the Board dated March 26, 1983, as well as the valuation made by the Registered Valuer and all other relevant factors for determination of such valuation. The Tribunal may, if it considers fit and proper, refer the matter to the Valuation Officer and thereupon decide the issue after allowing the parties an opportunity of being heard. We, therefore, decline to answer questions Nos. 2 and 3 and send back the matter on remand to the Tribunal to decide the question of valuation of the coffee estate in the light of the observations made in the judgment. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (7) TMI 7 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Accrual, Income ... ... ... ... ..... ion for inclusion of those amounts in the gross total income of the assessee ? It was submitted by learned counsel that similar question being the subject-matter of reference in CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. 1990 183 ITR 113 (Kar) has been answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Hence, following the said decision, we answer the question referred for our decision in these references in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1991 (7) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Income ... ... ... ... ..... the question whether the assessee has changed the method of accounting and has been following the cash system so far as the technical fees receivable from the Malaysian company are concerned has to be decided by the Tribunal in the light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative but remand the matter to the Tribunal to decide afresh the method of accounting followed by the assessee for recording the remuneration receivable from IMTB and, on that basis, redetermine the issue as regards the taxability. The Tribunal will either dispose of the matter or remand the matter to the concerned Income-tax Officer. Let the order be passed by allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and if necessary allowing them to adduce fresh evidence. By consent of the parties, the papers which have been placed by Mr. Bajoria will form part of the records. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (7) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Res Judicata ... ... ... ... ..... Supreme Court in British Paints India Ltd. 1991 188 ITR 44 and the Income tax Officer is not bound by the method of stock valuation accepted by him in making the assessments in the earlier years. Since stock valuation is admittedly a method of accounting, the assessee-bank can claim the benefit of stock valuation at cost or market value, whichever is lower only if such method is actually followed and adopted by him in preparing the final accounts. Without following this method in preparing the accounts, which are required to be prepared and presented under section 29 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, in the form set out in the Third Schedule thereto, the assessee-bank cannot be permitted to claim a loss on revaluation by claiming a different method of stock valuation notionally for income-tax purposes only. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer both the questions in the negative and in favour of the Revenue, There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (7) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business, Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... s account, transferred to the profit and loss account of the relevant previous year, did not constitute a trading receipt. As we have already indicated the present reference relates to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1979-80. Following the earlier decisions in the case of the assessee referred to above for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1956-57 to 1962-63 and 1969-70 to 1970-71, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Inasmuch as the question regarding the assessability of the amount in question is now pending before the Supreme Court against the judgment of this court in CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. 1979 117 ITR 621, on the oral application of counsel for the Revenue, we certify that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. Let the certificate in terms of section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, be issued expeditiously. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (7) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest On Refund, Interest Payable By Government, Refund, Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... igh Courts and with which we respectfully agree. Respondent No, 1, therefore, was clearly in error in denying relief to the company under section 244(1A) in respect of assessment year 1974-75 and in respect of the tax paid in pursuance of the rectification order for assessment year 1973-74 and the company is entitled to the interest in respect of these two claims. Accordingly, the petition partly succeeds and the Department is directed to pay interest to the company on the amount of refund of tax made while giving effect to the appellate order in respect of the rectification order for assessment year 1973-74. The Department is also directed to pay interest on the amount of refund for assessment year 1974-75 for the period commencing from April 1, 1974, till January 3, 1980. The Department is directed to calculate the amount of interest payable and make the payment within a period of eight weeks from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (7) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Agency Business, Business Income, Income Tax Act, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Profits And Gains Of Business
-
1991 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
On partition of HUF, members of that family continued business as partners - Whether the assessee was entitled to the deduction of interest on the debit balance of Rs. 1,75,310 taken over from the erstwhile HUF - rights of the assessee - claim of the assessee for allowable deduction of the interest paid cannot be defeated by the existence of personal liability of the members of the Hindu undivided family - assessee's appeal is allowed
....
|
