Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 370 of 370 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Capital Gains, Shares And Securities ... ... ... ... ..... luing the bonus shares was to take the amount spent by the shareholder in acquiring his original shares and to spread it over the old and new shares treating the new as accretions to the old and to treat the cost of the original shares as the cost of the old shares and bonus shares taken together. We are, therefore, of the view that where an assessee sells the entire block of his shares, original shares as well as bonus shares, the appropriate method of computing the value of the shares would be to spread the cost of the original shares over the original shares and bonus shares collectively and to ascertain the average price of all shares. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was right in upholding the method adopted in this case by the lower authorities in valuing the shares. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the third question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.
-
1991 (4) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... at, even if the subsequent fact, the sale of the property could be taken into account, the facts as were relevant at the material time show that the valuation was made correctly by taking the recognised method of valuation in determining the market value of a property occupied by the assessee. The Tribunal has taken into account the rent when the property was let out and if such letting out value was also considered, even then, it could not be said that the value which was adopted to determine the valuation of the property at the material time was not correct or proper. It is not the case of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax that the method which was adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer at the material time in determining the value of the property was not the appropriate method or the correct method. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question 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 (4) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... for the respondents urged before me that it was not possible to get the voluminous account books inspected in the short time allowed to the respondents and as such the order of the Sessions judge was fully justified. The Sessions judge further has presumed that there could not have been wilful default in view of the conduct of the respondents in filing the income-tax returns on January 4, 1972. 1 am unable to conclude that the findings of the Sessions judge about the absence of mens rea in the instant cases could be said to be unreasonable and unfounded on the basis of the evidence on record. There being no deliberate defiance or conscious disregard of the order of the Income-tax Officer in not filing the return within six months of the service of notice as rightly held by the Sessions judge, all these three appeals deserve to be dismissed and, 1, therefore, order accordingly. Let a copy of this order be placed on the record of the Criminal Appeals Nos. 440 and 441 of 1979.
-
1991 (4) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... r view, the total period to be excluded is as under (i) From 12-3-1965 to 18-9-1975 10 years 191 days (ii) From 29-9-1975 to 12-7-1979 3 years 287 days (iii) From 7-1-1980 to 4-8-1980 211 days (iv) Time taken in section 144B proceeding 180 days ---------------------------------- Total 15 years 139 days ---------------------------------- Normally, the assessments should have been completed by March 31, 1969. The period covered by stay orders and section 144B proceedings was 15 years 139 days. Thus, the assessment could be completed by August 17, 1984. If the period of 3 years and 287 days covered by the stay order of the Division Bench of this court is excluded, the assessment could be completed by November 3, 1980, whereas it was completed on October 15, 1980. Thus, in any event, the assessment was completed well within time. Accordingly, the question is decided in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. AJIT K. SENGUPTA J. - I agree.
-
1991 (4) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... od of limitation, the limitations prescribed under section 35 of the Act. We see no merit in the plea of the petitioners in this regard. So far as the quantum of income is concerned, the revisional authority has merely set aside the orders of the assessing authority and remitted the matter for consideration afresh after conducting a detailed enquiry in this regard. That being the position, the assessee shall be at liberty to raise all such pleas that are open to him in the matter of fixing the quantum of income, and the assessing authority shall consider and deal with the same in accordance with law. The revisions are, therefore, allowed partly to the extent that we uphold the claim of the assessee that there shall be two assessments, one in respect of 14.80 ordinary acres of land in his capacity as Hindu undivided family and the other extent of lands in his capacity as an individual. In other respects, the revisions shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... the finding of the Tribunal is that the amount has not been set apart for payment of bonus but the reserve was created to meet an unknown and unforeseen eventuality. This is a case of an amount being set apart to meet an unknown liability which may not arise at all. The assessee as a prudent businessman set apart a certain sum of money to meet an unknown contingency. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this amount is to be treated as a reserve and not provision. The Tribunal has specifically found that the liability for payment of bonus had been separately provided for by the assessee-company every year. This reserve had not been created for meeting an existing or known liability to pay bonus. An amount was set apart as a prudent businessman to provide for an unknown contingency. In that view of the matter, the question 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.
-
1991 (4) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... innison jute Mills Co. Ltd. For the reasons stated in the said order, with which we agree, we hold that in the case of the present assessee also the tax authorities were justified in treating the assessee mill as the real owner of the steel cores and the expenditure for purchasing the new steel cores in the year under consideration as capital expenditure. In our opinion, the finding of the Tribunal does not call for interference by this court. The decision of the Tribunal that the assessee-company was the real owner of the steel cores was based on facts and evidence and it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error. The finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the expenditure incurred for purchasing steel cores was a capital expenditure, is also justified. Under such circumstances, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and also in favour of the Revenue. AJIT K. SENGUPTA J.-I agree.
-
1991 (4) TMI 3 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... committee. In a non-proprietary club like the respondent, the members for the time being are jointly entitled to all the properties and funds. The individual interest of members can be ascertained only at the time of dissolution. The description of the club as a trust and the vesting of the properties in the members of the club as trustees is, therefore, of no significance. Following that decision, we hold that the respondent herein is an association of persons and not an individual and as such not assessable under the Wealth-tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the respondent is not an individual, but an association of persons and as such not assessable to wealth-tax. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1991 (4) TMI 2 - SC ORDER
Two alternatives are open under the scheme of the legislation that Union of India through the appropriate authority could buy the property, or in the event of its decision not to buy, it has to issue a "No objection certificate" leaving it open to the parties to deal with the property
-
1991 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
HUF - income from property as well as hire rent and commission - Whether income from properties purported to have been transferred to the trust was not assessable in the hands of the assessee-family - Whether, on a proper construction of the lease deeds the sum of ₹ 10,000 is the income of the assessee and not that of Chhadami Lal Jain Degree College - Whether the income from properties purported to have been transferred to Trust was not assessable in the hands of the assessee-family
....
|