Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 77 of 77 Records
-
1974 (11) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income Tax, New Industrial Undertaking, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... stated, the company is entitled to the benefit under section 80J. This entitles the shareholders who got the dividends to claim benefit under section 80K as the last portion of that section merely refers to entitlement of the company for relief under section 80J and not the actual allowance of the relief under that section. This is also the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in an unreported decision in W.P. No. 2279 of 1973, etc., in Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer. We, therefore, hold that the company is entitled to the certificates under section 197(3) which specifically enjoins the Income-tax Officer to determine the appropriate proportion of the dividend to be deducted under the provisions of section 80K. The writ petitions, are, therefore, allowed and the rule nisi is made absolute. The petitioner will have its costs in W.P. No. 1636 of 1971 only. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the other writ petitions
-
1974 (11) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... artment by permitting the assessee to pay the arrears in instalments and also issuing a tax clearance certificate in order to enable the assessee to leave the country. The assessee and the petitioner could not be permitted to repudiate this promise or act or bring an action inconsistent with the same. We are also of the view that having obtained a clearance certificate or a representation that he would pay the arrears in instalments and furnish security, it was not open to the assessee to rely on section 220(7). The petitioner had also specifically undertaken to pay the arrears due in default of the assessee paying the instalments and it is not now open to him to say that the assessee was not in default in view of section 220(7). We are, therefore, of opinion that there are no merits in this writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition and discharge the rule nisi. The respondent will be entitled to his costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (11) TMI 15 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Failure To File Estimate ... ... ... ... ..... hen the Income-tax Officer ascertained the true facts and realised that a much higher penalty could have been imposed he had jurisdiction to recall the earlier order imposing penalty on the basis of the estimated income and pass another order imposing the higher penalty. It was further observed that the jurisdiction to make the second order was not lost because he had omitted to recall the earlier order, although the two orders could not be enforced simultaneously or stand together. In my opinion, the decision in that case is of no assistance to the revenue because the facts were different and penalty had been imposed under section 28(3) of the 1922 Act and not under section 18A(9), which has a different scope. For the foregoing reasons, I answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessees and against the revenue. As the assessees have not appeared in the two references there will be no order as to costs. S. K. JHA J.--I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1974 (11) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act ... ... ... ... ..... to Yelukuru Satyanarayana v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and has no application to the present case. We must observe that the decision of the learned judge under appeal proceeded on the assumption that the adopted son was not a legatee under the will and that Sethu Chetty, the adoptive father, had already inherited the entire estate of Gopalasami Chettiar even before the death of Ramathilakam. But we have already pointed out that the Division Bench of this court held in A.S. No. 80 of 1960 that the adopted son could inherit the estate of Gopalasami Chettiar under his will though he might not have come under the expression putra pouthrathi santhathi of Ramathilakam. In the circumstances, therefore, with great respect to the learned judge we are unable to agree with his conclusions. In the result the writ appeal is allowed and the assessment order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty is restored. The appellant will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (11) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Income Tax Act, Penalty Provisions ... ... ... ... ..... rected the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to consider the same on the material available and give a clear and definite finding. In the absence of finding that there was no concealment of income in respect of the assessment years merely on the grounds that in the reassessment proceedings there was only an estimated ad hoc addition made in respect of each year, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that section 28(1)(c) was not applicable. We, therefore, answer the reference technically in the negative and in favour of the revenue. But this does not mean that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is confirmed. The Tribunal will now, while disposing of the case under section 66(5), have to go into the question as to whether the evidence on record show that there was any accretion of wealth warranting a finding of concealment of income in respect of each one of the assessment years and pass orders conformably with the findings. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1974 (11) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Income Tax, Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... id out by calculation and intention. By no stretch of imagination can the loss claimed by the assessee as having been sustained by it on the devaluation of the Pakistan currency be said to be money laid out by it by calculation and intention. It was also sought to be urged that there was no finding that this amount was shown as debit by way of a loss in the profit and loss account filed before the Controller of Insurance. In view of the clear observations to be found in para. 2 of the Tribunal s order dated 25th April, 1960, in which it has been stated that this was a common ground, I am unable to accept this submission. In the result, I am of opinion that the Income-tax Officer had no power to add this amount of Rs. 4,646 in arriving at the assessee s total income and the Tribunal was in error in sustaining the addition. VIMADALAL J.---I agree and have nothing to add. BY THE COURT.---The question is answered in the negative. The Commissioner to pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1974 (11) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Income Tax, Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... ere was in that case a finding by the Tribunal that the entry in question had not been made in the regular course of business and was not a bona fide entry. It was on those facts that the gift was negatived. Under those circumstances, in my opinion, the decision in Paliram Mathuradas s case 1966 59 ITR 278 (Bom) can be of no avail to the revenue in the present case. On the facts as found by the Tribunal to which I have already referred, and following the decision of this court in Chimanbhai Lalbhai s case 1958 34 ITR 259 (Bom), which has been cited above, I hold that there was a valid gift in the present case, and I would, therefore, answer the question set out in paragraph 11 of the statement of the case in the affirmative and against the revenue. S. K. DESAI J.---I agree. BY THE COURT Question in paragraph 11 of the statement of the case answered in the affirmative. Question in paragraph 12 of the statement of the case also answered in the affirmative. No order as to costs.
-
1974 (11) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... me-tax v. A. K. Das 1970 77 ITR 31 (Cal), (7) 1. R. Patel and Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1968 69 ITR 782 (Guj), (8) Walchand and Co. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1963 48 ITR 638 (Boni) and (9) Sree Meenakski Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1967 63 ITR 207 (SC). In the view we have taken and the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court as mentioned before, it is not necessary to examine these decisions in detail. In the premises, question No. 2 must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, in view of the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. K. Das 1970 77 ITR 31 (Cal), it must be held that such a question was not competent in the application by the assessee at the instance of the revenue. We, therefore, decline to answer such a question. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1974 (11) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Punj). In T. S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer v. Volkart Brothers 1971 82 ITR 50 (SC), the Supreme Court held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. If the construction of a particular provision was not free from doubt, it was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the, true scope of the provisions of the Act in a rectification proceeding under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. In view of this principle it cannot but be held that the Income-tax Officer was in error in reopening the debatable question of the applicability of rule 8. Our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1974 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the status of the assessee was correctly determined as HUF for the income-tax, wealth-tax and gift-tax - Whether the sum transferred to the account of Muthukaruppan and Palaniappan (sons of Periakaruppan Chettiar) in the previous year was liable to assessment under the Gift-tax Act - there is no evidence on record to support this case of blending which seems to have been argued for the first time in this court - assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1974 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Constitutional validity of the Taxation Laws by which the Indian Income-tax Act was extended - held that the second proviso to clause 2 of the Taxation Laws (Extension to Union Territories) (Removal of Difficulties) Order 2 of 1970, is ultra vires the Central Government when exercising the powers under clause (7) of Regulation III of 1963, and the revenue authorities are not entitled to levy tax on the basis of the depreciation allowance computed in accordance with the said proviso in the Order
-
1974 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim development rebate on new diesel engines fitted to vehicles - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that development rebate was not allowable on the new diesel engines installed on road transport vehicles - question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue
-
1974 (11) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sum representing the managing agency remuneration for the period April 1 1956, to June 30, 1957, was deductible in the computation of the income of the previous year ending on 30th June, 1958, relevant for the assessment year 1959-60 - assessee's liability to pay remuneration arises only when the Government conveyed its approval - appeal is accordingly allowed, the answer given by the High Court to the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee
-
1974 (11) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the declaration filed by the assessee under section 17(1) in respect of the assessment year 1958-59, was operative in relation to the reassessments in respect of the previous year ending on December 31, 1954, December 31, 1955, and December 31, 1956, corresponding to the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 - assessee's declaration under s. 17(1) was operated also in relation to reassessment for the earlier years
-
1974 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Revenue Receipt - contention that the sales tax should not be treated to be a part of the price realised by the assessee from the purchaser is not well founded - assessee's appeal is dismissed
-
1974 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether an unmarried male Hindu on partition of a joint Hindu family can be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family even though no other person besides him is a member of the alleged family - A single person, either male or female does not constitute a family - held that when only one person is there the assessment should be in the status of individual
-
1974 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the income derived by the respondent, Indian Sugar Mills Association, from its sugar export division is exempt from tax under section 4(3)(i) - Whether on a proper construction of the rules and regulations of the association, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the association derived from the business of export of sugar and interest from current and fixed deposits were not exempt u/s 4(3) - question is answered in favour of the revenue
|