Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 85 Records
-
1975 (1) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, High Court ... ... ... ... ..... to be accepted, and, therefore, the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali is not applicable. But it may be pointed out that in that decision the Supreme Court, at page 565, specifically stated ...... there was positive material to indicate that the business of Kohinoor Mills belonged to the assessee and the whole scheme was to disguise the profits of the assessee as those of a firm of four partners. It is only on this basis that their Lordships distinguished the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali . As we have already pointed out, there is no positive evidence in this case to show that Champa Gounder had been paid and the amount was not available with the assessee. Therefore, clearly, this case comes within the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali. Accordingly, we answer the reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250. Questions answered in the negative.
-
1975 (1) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... ly incurred in the performance of the duties. The fact that it is called a subsistence allowance and the circumstance that it is related to the provision of residence clearly go to show that it is an amount received by the assessee for his own benefit and not for meeting the expenses incurred in the performance of the duties at all. The duties had ended in the office. The assessee would have to stay and subsist somewhere, whether employed in India or in his own country. Any receipt for meeting such expenses would not come within the ambit of section 4(3)(vi) of the Act as such expenses are not shown to be incurred in the performance of duties. The assessee has failed to make out a claim under section 4(3)(vi) of the Act. In the result, the first question as reframed by us is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The second question is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax will have his costs. Counsel s fees Rs. 250.
-
1975 (1) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Criminal Proceedings, False Return, Income Returned, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... counsel for accused 1 and 2 that the fine amount has been paid. If so, the excess amount will be refunded to them. It is also stated by the learned counsel that even accused 3 had paid the entire fine amount. Since he is acquitted of all the charges, the entire fine amount will be refunded to him. I make it clear that on account of these convictions, the accused shall not suffer any disqualification. Before parting with this cage, I must commend the investigation done by Sri R. V. Viswanathan, Assistant Director of Investigation, Intelligence, Madras, in collecting materials to prove the case against the accused. I must also place on record my appreciation of the work done by Sri Subba Rao (P.W. 2), Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta. Sri C. K. Venkatanarasimhan, the Special Public Prosecutor, and Sri T. V. Ramanathan, the counsel for the accused, were of immense help to me both in presenting the facts of the case and elucidating the subtleties of law.
-
1975 (1) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Provident Fund ... ... ... ... ..... r the corresponding provision to section 64(3) of the Act when the question, which was sought to be raised, was not referred by the High Court. The question raised here relates to the assessability of the amount and not its aggregation. The liability to tax and the liability to aggregation are so wholly different that this cannot be taken as a contention bearing on the same question. Learned counsel for the accountable person submitted that we could, if necessary, reframe the question. The power to reframe the question cannot be extended so as to raise a new question which was not in controversy between the parties at the stage of the Tribunal. On the particular facts herein, we do not think it possible to permit the accountable person to raise this question at this stage. In the result, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Controller of Estate Duty will have his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1975 (1) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... tners but also the minor who has been given the benefits of the partnership. The other clauses of the deed including the clauses governing the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto should be read in that context. In the aforesaid view of the matter and following the principles laid down in the said decisions of the Supreme Court, in our opinion, the partnership deed reasonably construed only confers benefits of the partnership on the minor, Mohanlal, and does not make him a full partner. In our view the deed cannot be said to go beyond the provisions of section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and, therefore, it cannot be regarded as invalid. As, in our opinion, the partnership deed dated November 9, 1959, is a valid document refusal of its registration cannot be upheld. In the aforesaid view of the matter we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and the circumstances of this case, we do not make any order as to costs.
-
1975 (1) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... der the Act, the mere existence of liability to pay tax is not sufficient to recover the tax. Liability may be there when an assessment order is made. But there should be machinery provision to enforce that liability. That apart, the contention that the word defaulter in rule 32 means and includes a partner, would run counter to the entire scheme of the Act. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed not to proceed to recover the tax dues made mention of in exhibit P-1 from the petitioners on the strength of the tax recovery certificate issued by the first respondent to the second respondent. I make it clear that on the question of liability of the partners with regard to the debts of the firm I have not considered or pronounced anything ill this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. Carbon copy of this judgment will be issued to the parties if applied for in that behalf on usual terms.
-
1975 (1) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dissolution Of Firm, Market Value, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... oper to countenance the view that the circulars issued by the Central Board will fetter the judicial discretion of the authorities administering the Act. If such contentions were to be accepted, then it would be easy for the administrative authorities to put out of commission the entire hierarchy of tribunals and courts by issuing circulars. This would not have been contemplated by the legislature and that is why the Supreme Court has restricted the applicability of such circulars to administrative matters. We would, therefore, hold that the circular, as such, has no binding force with reference to the assessment now before us. We may make it clear that we do not accept the view of the Tribunal that the departmental officers are bound by such circulars of the Board of Revenue with reference to quasi-judicial matters. In the result, questions Nos. 1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The Commissioner will have his costs. Counsel s fee, Rs. 250.
-
1975 (1) TMI 18 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Original Assessment, Reassessment Notice ... ... ... ... ..... t be any scope for the exercise of any such power by the Income-tax Officer in case no rigid time limit was specified. I do not see any difficulty in construing proviso (ii) as it stood before the 1970 amendment as requiring merely that the return as well as the declaration must be filed before the Income-tax Officer before the assessment was made. The amendment, if in any way relevant, reinforces the view I have taken independently of it and does not in any way strengthen the case of the department. For the aforesaid reasons, I answer the question referred for the opinion of this court in the affirmative and hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Tribunal allowing continuance of the registration of the firm is legal and proper. The question is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. In the circumstances of the case, however, the assessee is not entitled to costs of this reference. S. N. P. SINGH C.J.-I agree.
-
1975 (1) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Waiver Or Reduction Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... fficer. Looking at the penalty orders it is obvious that the same have been passed as per the directive of the Commissioner. These penalty orders were not passed by the Wealth-tax Officer by application of his own mind and on the ground that the conditions mentioned in section 18(1)(a) were not fulfilled. The orders are, indeed, non-speaking orders and suffer from the vice of such orders. Accordingly, I quash the said orders also. The result is that the petition is accepted, the penalties imposed on the petitioner and the orders of the Commissioner passed on the petitioner s application under section 18(2A) are set aside. A mandamus is hereby issued that the Commissioner should hear the petitioner and decide her petition under section 18(2A) afresh according to law. Directions are also given to the Wealth-tax Officer to decide the question of levy of penalty afresh in accordance with law. Petitioner will also be entitled to her costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 300. Petition allowed.
-
1975 (1) TMI 16 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons ... ... ... ... ..... r may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee. In the instant case, the assessee who is in default is M/s. Shanmugam Textiles , an association of persons. The petitioner, M/s. K. A. Veerichetty and Sons , admittedly, did not owe any money to the assessee. They might owe money to V. Shanmugam who was a partner and who is also one of the members of the association of persons called Shanmugam Textiles . But that is not sufficient to invoke the provisions of section 226(3). So long as it is not disputed that M/s. K. A. Veerichetty and Sons do not owe any money to Shanmugam Textiles , the impugned attachment was wholly illegal and the certificate issued for recovery of the money under attachment was equally bad. In the result, the rule is made absolute and a writ in the nature of certiorari shall issue quashing the impugned certificate dated January 18, 1974, issued by respondent I to respondent 2. The petitioner is entitled to its costs. Advocate s fee, Rs. 100.
-
1975 (1) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... oothen the joints or remove minor obscurities, to make it workable, but it cannot change, disfigure or do violence to the basic structure and primary features of the Act. In no case, can it, under the guise of removing a difficulty, change the scheme and essential provisions of the Act. In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioner s contentions 1 and 4 that there is in fact no difficulty in giving effect to the provisions of the Income-tax Act and that in the guise of removing a difficulty the Central Government cannot change the scheme and the essential provisions of the Act have to be accepted and the impugned assessment order set aside with a direction to make a fresh assessment without taking into account the said Removal of Difficulties Order, 2 of 1970. As the petitioner succeeds on the first and fourth contentions, we think it unnecessary to go into the other contentions raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
-
1975 (1) TMI 14 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Annual Value, House Property, Retrospective Operation ... ... ... ... ..... respondent, a feeble attempt was made to sustain the impugned assessment orders by relying on the second proviso to section 36. The second proviso reads Provided further that in computing the period of limitation for assessment or reassessment under this section, the time during which the assessment has been deferred on account of any stay order granted by any court or other authority in any case or by reason of the fact that an appeal or other proceeding is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court, shall be excluded The above proviso is clearly not applicable to the facts of the present case as this court has never stayed any proceedings as against the petitioners. It may at best be applicable to the case of P. C. Pai who has not come before this court. In the result, rules issued in these petitions are made absolute and a writ of certiorari shall issue quashing the impugned assessments. The petitioners are entitled to their costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100 one set.
-
1975 (1) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax Return, Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... e application against the order of the Tribunal does not affect the jurisdiction the Income-tax Officer to issue the present notice. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to raise a point that the return filed even initially as an individual was wrong and that this is a case where the proper status for assessment should only be as Hindu undivided family. This is a matter which cannot be decided in the present writ proceedings and the appropriate forum for it is the Expenditure-tax Officer. If the assessee wants to raise any such plea, he should do so before him in the reassessment proceedings which would follow in the present notice. In the result, we hold that there is no lack of jurisdiction to issue notice under section 16(b) of the Act, on the part of the respondent so as to warrant interference in writ proceedings. We agree with the learned judge in declining to issue the writ prayed for by the appellant. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (1) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Legal Representative, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... our opinion, is an assessee within the meaning of this expression used in the section, for this expression has been defined in section 2(2) of the Act, and in no uncertain terms the Supreme Court has laid down that the legal representatives of a deceased assessee is an assessee within the meaning of this expression as defined by section 2(2) of the Act. The question of service of notices under section 24B(2) or section 24B(3) of the Act can only come after a person is found to be the legal representative of the deceased assessee under section 24B(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in confining the above decision of the Supreme Court only to those cases that come under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 24B of the Act. In this view of the matter, we are unable to agree with the Tribunal and our answer to question No. 2 is in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The revenue will get the costs of this reference. Certified for two counsel. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1975 (1) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... this court in Govinda Chandra Das v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax is on the Wealth-tax Act but the Wealth-tax Act and the Income-tax Act are not in pari materia. Further, there is no such section in the Wealth-tax Act like section 9(3) as in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, nor there is any such section in the Wealth-tax Act like section 26 as in the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, the assessee cannot rely on Govinda Chandra Das s case, for it has no application in relation to the assessment of income from other sources under the respective Income-tax Acts. In this view of the matter, our answer to question No. 2 is in favour of the department, that is to say, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the bustees should be assessed under the head other sources in the hands of the Hindu undivided family and not in the hands of the individual coparceners. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1975 (1) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appellate Authority, Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Income Tax Act, Reassessment Proceedings, Recovery Proceedings
-
1975 (1) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... e Tribunal that in cases of estimates and best judgment assessments provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted. In that case the Tribunal had not considered the applicability of the Explanation and we have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned judges that where the Explanation applies even cases of estimate and best judgment assessment can also come within the purview of section 271(1)(c), but if the Explanation is not applicable such cases would clearly be outside the ambit of the penal provision. In the instant case, the Tribunal has considered the applicability of the Explanation and has recorded a finding that the assessee was not guilty of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. On the facts, we are satisfied that the Tribunal arrived at a correct conclusion. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Question answered in the negative.
-
1975 (1) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Higher Rate ... ... ... ... ..... lty was imposed. The Income-tax Officer must have induced the assessee to surrender the cash deposit so as to avoid penalty which could be as high as one and a half times the tax sought to be evaded. It is possible that the surrender was made in order to escape the penal liability. In our opinion, the present case is of a similar nature. Here also, we are satisfied that the assessee must have agreed to enhanced assessment in order to escape penalty. The admission made by the assessee was not voluntary or free. Since we have held that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable, a reference to it shall be omitted and the question will have to be re-drafted. We accordingly re-draft the question of law as Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty? and answer it in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1975 (1) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... the computation of the capital employed in the two new industrial undertakings ? We have extracted rule 19(5) above which clearly provides that the profits earned from a new undertaking, until the contrary is shown, arises evenly during the year and shall increase the capital employed. In other words, while computing the total capital for the purposes of section 84, the profits earned from the new undertakings during the relevant previous year had to be added to the capital. The rule is clear and unambiguous and does not admit of any other interpretation. Dr. Misra, the learned counsel for the department, has not been able to show as to how, in view of this rule, the profit earned by the assessee during the relevant previous year could be left out of the computation of the total income. We, accordingly, answer the question as reframed by us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1975 (1) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital, Law And Fact, Mixed Question, Not Less Than Seven Years, Question Of Law
|