|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 479 of 479 Records
-
1998 (11) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Valuation Of Assets, Valuation Of Unquoted Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... erty has to be valued, the authorities under the Act have to follow it. They cannot devise their own ways and means for valuing the assets. The questions referred to us therefore have necessarily to be and are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee has not been served with notice in this reference. We have nevertheless proceeded to dispose of the reference having regard to the fact that the law on the question has been now declared authoritatively by the Supreme Court and the law so declared is binding on all persons and authorities in India including the assessee. However, we reserve liberty to the respondent in this reference to apply to us for the purpose of making any submission which though material for the purpose of disposing of this reference had not been brought to our notice by the Revenue. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to determine the value of the unquoted equity shares in accordance with rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules.
-
1998 (11) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty, Waiver Or Reduction Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ruction or by evasive tactics in completing the assessment. It also has to be seen that the Commissioner has brushed aside the various relevant and germane submissions put forward by the petitioner-assessee in support of his plea that non-exercise of power under section 273A(4) of the Act would result in genuine hardship to the assessee. In view of the above, it could be said that the Commissioner has failed to exercise his power under section 273A(4) of the Act. Relying upon the Above judgments, the impugned order passed by the respondent is quashed and a direction shall however be issued to the respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner filed under section 273A(4) of the Act, afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations, made, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. But, W. M. P. Nos. 19222 of 1994, 7423 of 1995, 16433 and 16434 of 1995 are dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... the case of CIT v. Coimbatore Pictures (P.) Ltd. 1973 90 ITR 452 should govern this case. The fact that the assessee therein was also a distributor even as the assessee here is a distributor, does not imply that that decision, without anything more, will be applicable to this case as well. A decision is to be regarded as a precedent for its ratio decidendi and not for the facts in relation to which such ratio was laid down. The ratio of that case as we read it is that before a deduction can be claimed on the ground of business loss, the loss should have been incurred in the course of business, and it should be in the nature of revenue loss. We are in entire agreement with that proposition. On the facts of this case, the loss to the assessee being a revenue loss which had been incurred in the course of business, the assessee was entitled to deduct the same under section 37 of the said Act. We answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (11) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Waiver Of Interest ... ... ... ... ..... t to add to the wealth of the assessee, but to relieve the assessee from genuine hardship. The ordinary rule is that the persons who do not obey the law in the manner required are liable to be penalised, They may be relieved of that liability if the circumstances specially provided for by the statute are shown to exist and it is for the persons seeking waiver to demonstrate that the waiver is warranted having regard to the statutory conditions for waiver. If at the time the relief is sought, the assessee had no hardship, relief cannot be granted by holding that at some time in the past the assessee had hardship. Whatever hardship he may have had earlier had already been relieved by reason of the very substantial consideration he received from the sale of the property. There was at the time of the order of the Commissioner no hardship requiring relief. The order of the Commissioner, therefore, is not one which requires interference. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax ... ... ... ... ..... in the payment of Rs. 10 lakhs and had not come forward to pay the amounts in instalments, the recovery effected by the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be illegal. The stand of the assessee appears to have been that the fixed deposit receipts and other documents should not have been returned and it is only after their return, the assessee would have become liable for the payment of the amounts directed to be paid by the Settlement Commission. The obligation to pay the money was not postponed till such time the documents were returned. The retention of the documents was done in a manner which was in accordance with law. The retention also did not result in the assessee being relieved from the obligation to pay the amounts required to be paid under the Settlement Commission s order. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in these writ petitions. Both these writ petitions are dismissed. All the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment, Status, Association Of Persons ... ... ... ... ..... icer at Coimbatore, who has made assessments impugned before the Tribunal. That fact is not disputed before us. The findings by the Tribunal that the assessment must have become final is fully justified and is reasonable. The second question is answered against the Revenue. As regards the first question, counsel contended that the Revenue always has the right to tax the right person and, therefore, this assessment was rightly made. Though the Revenue is right in normal circumstances, having regard to the passage of time of over three decades and the fact that the assessee had been lulled into the belief at the instance of the Revenue who have taxed them as individuals and collected tax on that basis, and the amount so collected has admittedly not been refunded with or without interest, we do not propose to disturb the Tribunal s order. We answer the first question, having regard to the said circumstance of the case, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exemption, House Rent Allowance, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... with retrospective effect from April 1, 1976, by adding an Explanation. The Explanation so added reads as under Explanation.---For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared, that nothing contained in this clause shall apply in a case where--- (a) the residential accommodation occupied by the assessee is owned by him or (b) the assessee has not actually incurred expenditure on payment of rent by whatever name called in respect of the residential accommodation occupied by him Having regard to this Explanation, the assessee who admittedly has not incurred expenditure on payment of rent, was clearly disentitled to claim the benefit of section 10(13A) of the Act. The question referred to us, viz., whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(13A) of the Act even though he resides in his own house ? is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (11) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the person who has been given the right to gather, as his own property. The words right to receive have been used in the statutory provision to indicate the right to become the owner of the goods and not merely an instance of one person delivering goods to another without any intent to transfer the ownership therein. What is material is the transfer of title. In the auction of the right to gather the forest produce is, therefore, an auction in relation to the right to receive forest produce by going into the forest and gathering the produce. Section 44AC, therefore, has rightly been invoked by the respondents. The respondents, however, shall apply sections 28 to 43C and only thereafter retain with them such part of the amount now retained as they may be found entitled to after computing the profits and gains in accordance with sections 28 to 43C of the Income-tax Act. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, no order is necessary in W. M. P. No. 23912 of 1995.
-
1998 (11) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Interest, Waiver Or Reduction, Interpretation OF STATUTES ... ... ... ... ..... , cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner, as it is not the finding of the Commissioner that all the conditions of the provision have been in fact fulfilled. As already noticed the Commissioner s finding is that there was lack of total co-operation, and that there was no undue hardship to the assessee. The Commissioner has exercised his jurisdiction within the ambit of the law in limiting the relief to 50 per cent. That discretion cannot be interfered with by treating this petition as an appeal against his order. Counsel for the Revenue in this context relied on a decision of the apex court in the case of Smt. Harbans Kaur v. CWT 1997 224 ITR 418, wherein it has been held that the discretionary order of the Commissioner is not to be interfered with by treating the writ petition as an appeal. In the circumstances therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently W. M. P. No. 11700 of 1997 is also dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income ... ... ... ... ..... rived as non-agricultural income while the Tribunal held that it would be agricultural income. This court in T. C. No. 1266 of 1986 decided on September 9, 1998, concerning the same assessee, has held that the registration fee is not directly linked to the agricultural operation and does not constitute agricultural income. The compounding fee, however, represented the value of the agricultural produce unauthorisedly removed by the buyer and therefore constitutes agricultural income. We, therefore, answer the first question referred to us, viz., whether the income derived by sale of firewood and grazing permits was agricultural income, in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. We answer the other question referred to us as to whether the registration fee and compounding fee collected by the assessee constituted agricultural income, in favour of the assessee so far as the compounding fee is concerned and in favour of the Revenue so far as the registration fee is concerned.
-
1998 (11) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reference, Gift ... ... ... ... ..... to us at the instance of the Revenue are concerned, we find from a perusal of the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal is right in its construction of the document under which admittedly the life interest was created in favour of his wife and the mother after the sole surviving coparcener. It is well settled that even though the wife or the mother may not be coparceners in the Hindu joint family, they are entitled to maintenance and the right to such maintenance was not created for the first time by the State but, is an recognised right in them under the Hindu Law. The creation of life interest in their favour in certain lands owned by the sole surviving coparcener to meet their claim for maintenance, therefore, cannot be regarded as a transfer of interest in the immovable property without any consideration. 5. The two questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are, therefore, required to be and are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1998 (11) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Block Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... return. Even in search cases where the time for filing the return under section 139(1) has not expired, income disclosed in the books of account is not treated as undisclosed income. All that is denied to the assessee in search cases is the opportunity to file a return after the period specified in section 139(1) and to claim that the income that he would have disclosed in a belated return is not to be regarded as undisclosed income. The reason for denying such opportunity in search cases is obvious. After having suffered a search, the assessee is not to be enabled to escape the consequences of his failure to disclose all his income by filing a return after the search and after the expiry of the time prescribed under section 139(1) and by disclosing therein income which had remained undisclosed upto the date of the search. Section 158BB(1)(c) is not in any way unconstitutional. The writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, W. M. Ps. Nos. 4539 and 4540 of 1997 are dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 7 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Writ, Powers Of High Court, Law Applicable, Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... 6 Tax LR 960 (Raj), also deserved to be quashed for the reasons discussed hereinabove. The upshot of the aforementioned discussion is that the instant Writ Petition No. 1554 of 1998 and S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 406 of 1998 filed by the petitioner lack merit and as such are hereby dismissed subject to and without prejudice to his right to show cause and explain before the income-tax authority that no part of Rs. 12,00,000 is his undisclosed income. S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 363 of 1998 filed by the Income-tax Officer, Sumerpur, is hereby allowed with a direction to the learned judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur to release the entire amount of Rs. 12,00,000 to the Income-tax Department. The assessing authority is directed to conclude the proceedings against the petitioner under Chapter XIV-B of the Act of 1961 within a reasonable period, preferably within six months from today. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case costs are made easy.
-
1998 (11) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat the assessee has filed returns after detection, it at best is a rebuttable pre sumption of fact which can be upturned during the course of proceedings. What amount of evidence would be necessary for rebutting the presumption arising out of such survey is a matter in the realm of sufficiency or adequacy of evidence necessary for reaching a conclusion of fact. It does not give rise to a question of law. The Tribunal in each of the cases has found that during the course of survey no incriminating material has been found and there are no allegations against full and true disclosure or good faith on the part of the assessee. These are all findings of fact. If the Tribunal has reached its findings of fact by taking into consideration the fact of survey that no detection has been found in our opinion no question of law arises as suggested by the Revenue in these applications. The applications are, therefore, rejected. Notices are discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ound to be arbitrary and unsustainable this is a fit case wherein any request for further remand should be declined. A person who has entered into a transaction to purchase immovable property, at its fair market value is not to be driven to endless litigation on account of the authority s order. Having regard to the evidence placed by the petitioner before the authority. It is clear that the market value of the property at the time of the transaction cannot be said to have been higher than the rate at which the petitioner had agreed to purchase the property. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The authority is directed to issue a no objection certificate immediately after the petitioner pays to the authority a sum of Rs.19,00,000. Such payment shall be made by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs.2,500. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 30905 of 1994 is closed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sed by an Assessing Officer on all matters except those which have been considered and decided in an appeal. The above Explanation was incorporated in the Finance Act, 1988, to clarify this legal position which is deemed always, to have been, in existence. By the Finance Act, 1989, the Explanation (a) under section 263(1) was amended to make the intention of Parliament crystal dear and the words, on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, were substituted in section 263(1), Explanation (a), clause (i), which words are also applicable to clause (c) of the Explanation. The assessee s contention that the Commissioner had no power to exercise his revisional jurisdiction in view of the alleged merger of the assessment order with the appellate order, in respect of the matters not considered in appeal is without any substance and it is required to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (11) TMI 3 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s not found entitled to full benefit under section 10(14), in any way reflect on the estimate of income-tax payable on the income of the employee at the time when such amount is paid. Whether an employee actually incurs such amount for official purposes is relevant for assessment of the employee because the exemption operates in his terms and conditions of availing of such exemption that is to be fulfilled by him. Whether the employee is able to substantiate his claim to exemption has no bearing on the estimate of income liable to tax to be made by the employer. These findings do not give rise to any question of law. The fact that ultimately on the assessment of the employees they have been found in not utilising the full amount received by them from the employer does not reflect in any manner on the estimate of the employer at the end of each month about the income of the employee received from his employer liable to tax as per the mark it bears. The application is rejected.
-
1998 (11) TMI 2 - SC ORDER
Service Tax – Concept of deeming provision of valuation of taxable service ... ... ... ... ..... ment under Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994. The order was also not mentioning that the accounts of assessee was rejected as incorrect or incomplete. It was also not given in the order that on what basis the Superintendent has stated that the brokerage must be charged in all cases and there was no free service provided by a stock broker at all having regard to the practice of the trade. The Tribunal also held that Section 67 of the said Finance Act relating to Service tax does not have the concept of deeming provision of valuation of taxable service. In the circumstances the Tribunal held that the authorities below have not prima facie passed a correct order and allowed the Stay Petition unconditionally.
-
1998 (11) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR)
Service Tax – Chartered Accountants practicing in the State of Rajasthan – Operations and Implementation
....
|
