|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 419 of 419 Records
-
1997 (8) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income-Tax (Tamil Nadu) ... ... ... ... ..... 5(e), as the assessee did not furnish all the necessary particulars regarding the manner in which the moneys had been expended in the earlier years from out of the loans still outstanding. The proportion in which expenditure was incurred in the previous year has therefore been adopted as the basis for allocating the amount of interest to be allowed as a deduction, under sections 5(e) and 5(k) even though the borrowings were in the earlier years. It is not open to an assessee to obtain a larger benefit by merely asserting that the assessing officer should allow his claim, without furnishing all the relevant information. Since the particulars required to be furnished were not furnished, it was open to the authority to adopt the method which was not unfair or illegal. We are satisfied that the method adopted cannot be regarded as violative of any provision of law and the method adopted is fair. We do not see any merit in this revision and, therefore, the revision is dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Deduction, Depreciation, Condition Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... The amount is not such as to be regarded as unreal or artificially boosted. The Tribunal was in error in not allowing this deduction. The last item in respect of which the assessee is aggrieved is disallowance of a part of the amount which it had claimed as depreciation of a motor car. The Tribunal has found that the motor car did not belong to the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has noted that on enquiry, it was found that no car was maintained in the estate and the motor car maintained by the superintendent was not the property of the estate. Under section 5(f) of the Act, depreciation can be claimed only in respect of things owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of deriving the agricultural income. As the assessee is not the owner of the car, as found by the Tribunal, the assessee is not entitled to claim any depreciation on the motor car. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. Parties should bear their respective costs.
-
1997 (8) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision, Powers Of CIT ... ... ... ... ..... ade a ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. The cause of action is the original assessment order disallowing certain claims. The order of assessment had already been challenged once in appeal and therefore applying the above principles to the case in hand, while preferring the appeal, the appellant ought to have attacked the order on all the grounds available including the grant of depreciation or deduction of a sum of Rs. 6,20,023, being the amount of incremental liability towards gratuity. This finding is also a part of the said composite order and is inseparable from the rest of the order. For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment under appeal and hold that the first respondent rightly rejected the second revision application exercising powers under section 264(4)(c) of the Act. Thus, we find no merit in these appeals and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (8) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Reference, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... as brought into existence, which is of enduring nature by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 33,800, the Tribunal held that expenditure of Rs. 33,800 is allowed as revenue expenditure. A similar view was taken in CIT v. Andavar Calendering Mills 1994 210 ITR 815 (Mad). In CIT v. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. 1981 130 ITR 385 (Mad), it was held that on the building taken on lease, expenditure incurred for partition wall panelling construction, etc., would be of revenue nature. In view of the foregoing decisions, we answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. In so far as question No. 2, is concerned, the assessee claimed depreciation under section 32(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Inasmuch as the expenditure incurred by the assessee was held to be revenue expenditure, the question of allowing depreciation would not arise. Therefore, question No. 2 does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. There will no order as to costs.
-
1997 (8) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment, Tenants-in-common ... ... ... ... ..... ken the view that the tenants-in-common are also to be regarded as association of individuals and assessed as such. Though the Act does not define tenants-in-common , the charging section 3(3) itself requires that the persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each of the tenants-in-common. Had the Legislature intended that the status of tenants-in-common should be treated in the same manner as that of the association of individuals, section 3(3) would not have been enacted. Section 3(3) is a special provision meant to be applied to tenants-in-common. The assessment of the assessee should therefore have been made in accordance with section 3(3) of the Act. It is to be noticed here that the decision in A.T.A. No. 105 of 1984 decided on March 25, 1986, and relied upon by the Tribunal has been reversed by us in T. C. No. 1305 of 1986. These revision cases are allowed. No costs.
-
1997 (8) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... er to re-examine all the deductions claimed by the assessees from their income for the relevant years with reference to the vouchers and other documents produced by the assessees. If such documents have been produced and had been retained in the files, the Assessing Officer shall examine the claims with reference to those documents and any other explanation that may be offered by the assessees. If those documents had not been so retained, the assessees shall produce the same before the Assessing Officer. The orders of the Tribunal as also that of the appellate authority and the order of the Assessing Officer are, therefore, set aside and the matters remanded to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for making a fresh assessment, after due notice to the assessees and examining all the records produced by the assessees for the relevant years. It is made clear that the assessees will not be entitled to produce any records which had not been produced before the authorities earlier.
-
1997 (8) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction, Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... on October 19, 1994. It was merely observed therein that the deduction of the interest income from the interest paid was in order. While making that observation, the court did not take into consideration the limitation of the amount of interest that can be claimed as deduction under section 5(k) of the Act. We are unable to regard that judgment as having laid down the proposition that, despite the ceiling on the amount of interest deductible under section 5(k) of the Act, a larger sum can be deducted by the assessee by merely setting off the interest earned against the interest paid even before computing the amount admissible under section 5(k) of the Act. The amount admissible under section 5(k) of the Act is the proportion to be calculated on the total amount of interest paid and not on the lesser amount arrived at after setting off the interest received against the interest paid. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal and allow the revision petition. No costs.
-
1997 (8) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Capital Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... a part of his capital. The apex court in the case of A. K. T. K M. Vishnudatta Antharjanam v. CAIT 1970 78 ITR 58 held that the sale of trees by removing the roots results in the removal of the source from which fresh growth of trees could take place and the receipts from the sale of trees after uprooting would constitute a capital receipt. The trees in question in this case---silver oak and albezzia and other trees had been grown as shade trees for the coffee plants. The ratio of the judgment of the apex court rendered in the case of tea is equally applicable to the case of a coffee plantation. The Mysore High Court in the case of Consolidated Coffee Estates (1943) Ltd. v. CAIT 1970 76 ITR 29 has also taken a similar view. It is not the case of the Revenue that the shade trees had not been uprooted and were capable of regeneration. We do not find any error in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances, without cost.
-
1997 (8) TMI 11 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Reference, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... 201 ITR 875, the Allahabad High Court, practically in similar circumstances, has held that the question whether there is a genuine firm in existence or not is essentially a question of fact. In this case also, as discussed above, the authority came to a conclusion after perusal of the documents on record that the firm was not in existence, the said finding being a question of fact, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be interfered with. The decision in the case of Nellikkottu 1977 1 Supreme 210. in our opinion, is on different facts and circumstances. In that case, the Supreme Court considered the power of the High Court to grant perpetual injunction in second appeal and while considering, has held that non-consideration of the material evidence is a substantial question of law. In our view, reliance on that case on behalf of the petitioner is misplaced and does not help him. In the result, we find no merit in this case and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1997 (8) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... or partly for charitable or religious purposes, to the same extent to which income derived from property held under trust wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes, is not included in the total income for purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act XLIII of 1961) It was therefore necessary for the assessee to show that during the relevant year of assessment, the assessee had been recognised as a charitable and religious trust under the Income-tax Act and the income derived from the property held by it under trust for charitable and religious purpose had not been included in the total income for the purposes of the Central Act, for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal therefore cannot be said to have committed any illegality by upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax who had held that the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year 1983-84 was liable to tax. This revision is dismissed. No costs.
-
1997 (8) TMI 9 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... g the order of transfer. Thus, where the transfer is to another city, the mere mention of stock phrases like to facilitate coordinated investigation or variations thereof will not be in compliance with the mandatory requirement of section 127. In the abovesaid cases the impugned orders of transfer are quashed on the ground that neither the impugned orders contains any reasons nor the Commissioner was authorised to transfer the cases outside his jurisdiction as the Cuttack Assessing Officer was not his subordinate. Even otherwise because of the reason that on account of some raid made on the firm, Ores India Ltd., the assessees at Jaipur who are being assessed at Jaipur, for the last so many years, cannot be asked to present themselves before Cuttack for the purposes of assessment relating to their firms at Jaipur, The impugned orders of transfer of the cases of the petitioners to Cuttack cannot be sustained in law and are, therefore, quashed with costs of Rs. 1,000 per case.
-
1997 (8) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Claim of the assessee was that the joint family had effected partial partition in respect of certain properties of the family - Hindu undivided family, cannot say that it stands divided in respect of the property and at the same time enjoy the property jointly. Whatever may be the position under the Hindu law, section 171 of the Income-tax Act is quite clear in this regard - partial partition can not be recognised if properties which are capable of division are not actually divided.
-
1997 (8) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Claim for deduction of refund of sales tax - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the sum of Rs. 1,37,379 from the taxable trading receipt of the assessee for 1974-75 - held that Sales tax refund was a revenue receipt liable to tax u/s 41(1) - but deduction will be allowed when the same was refunded to the purchasers.
-
1997 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Weighted deduction - Burden Of Proof - Rectification Of Mistakes - dispute relates to various expenditure including commissions paid to STC, HHEC and ECGC - it is the assessee's duty to prove that expenses are wholly and exclusively incurred for any of the purposes mentioned in clause (b) of section 35B(1) - if assessee prove the same deduction will be allowed - ITO was justified in entertaining assessee's prayer for rectification of the order and allowing the assessee's claim
-
1997 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Development Allowance - weighted deduction u/s 35B in respect of commission payment - No particulars of the expenditures were furnished by assessee before Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to them - onus of proving the facts and getting the benefit of the deduction lies on the assessee - Tribunal cannot allow the claim on assumption of facts - The Tribunal was also in error in not referring the case to the High Court
-
1997 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Donation to the trust - claim for deduction under section 80G - deduction disallowed on reopening of assessment u/s 147(b) - held that trust and the donation by the assessee to it fall outside the scope of section 80G.
-
1997 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether industrial development could be enveloped within the expression "planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages or for both" in section 10(20A) - appellant, the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation claimed exemption from taxation on two alternative premises, one under article 289(1) of the Constitution and the other clause (20A) of section 10 - held that entitled to exemption from the under section 10(20A)
-
1997 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Machinery used not merely for the manufacture of nuts, bolts and screws for automobiles, but also for the manufacture of such articles for other machinery - machinery is mentioned in the Fifth Schedule - hence impugned machinery will get development rebate at the rate of 35 per cent, even if not used exclusively in mfg. of nuts, bolts and screws for automobiles
-
1997 (8) TMI 1 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Service Tax – Delay in filing of quarterly return under impression of that return of period when no business is carried out not to be filed – Nil return submitted – No Penalty
....
|
