|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 104 Records
-
1973 (8) TMI 44 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Debt Due, Gift Tax, Write Off ... ... ... ... ..... iminish directly or indirectly the value of his own property and to increase the value of the property of any other person . It was while interpreting this provision that the Supreme Court said that the transaction must be a bilateral one in order to fall under section 2(xxiv)(d). The decision cannot have any application in determining the scope and ambit of section 4(c). This is not a case of abandonment. There was only an attempt made, by the assessee to make. it appear that the debt was a bad debt and had become irrecoverable. In the circumstances mentioned above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal as required by sub-section (1) of section 26 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (8) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... underlying sub-section (2) of section 24 is that the business losses can be carried forward and adjusted against the profits of the business in the following years only if the business, in which the loss was suffered, continued to be in existence. If such business ceases to exist, its losses cannot be carried forward and be set off against the income or gains in subsequent years. Sub-clause (iii) merely provides that where a loss which could be carried forward and adjusted under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) has not been fully adjusted, it can be carried forward to the following year and so on. Since in the instant case the loss could not be carried forward and set off under sub-clause (ii), no question of its being carried forward and being set off under sub-clause (iii) arises. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. The department will be entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (8) TMI 42 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act ... ... ... ... ..... l. It is conceded before us by both sides that the petitioner had by making a voluntary disclosure invoked the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 271(4A) of the Act. Disclosure was with reference to the income to be brought into the net of taxation. Penalty was a matter directly provided under that provision. Therefore, the Commissioner rightly dealt with the quantum of income and the question of penalty. Thereafter, he instructed the Income-tax Officer to give effect to the settlement. We are satisfied, therefore, that non-mention of the question of interest in the settlement cannot be construed as agreeing not to raise demand of interest. The claim of interest is in terms of the statute and no dispute has been raised that there is any infraction otherwise. The settlement referred to above, therefore, cannot stand as a bar to the claim of interest. The petitions have no merit and they are accordingly rejected. We make no order as to costs. B. K. RAY J.--I agree.
-
1973 (8) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From Other Sources, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... been disowned by the Government, in its said letter it had been clearly stated that the proposal for adjustment having been withdrawn, the Government had decided to proceed with the recoveries in accordance with the remedies available to it but so far as the dues recoverable from the Government were concerned, a civil action by the company had possibly become time-barred. In any case, since the item of income was very much in doubt as on March 31, 1954, having regard to the position disclosed by the balance-sheet and profit and loss account, it cannot be said that the decision of the directors not to declare any dividend was unreasonable. In this view of the matter, we are fully satisfied that this was not a case where the provisions of section 23A were attracted. The question that has been referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative and against the department. Revenue will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee-company. Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (8) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... family took place in 1952. She did not claim any share at that time but instead accepted a maintenance of Rs. 30 per month. The Tribunal found that merely because she accepted a maintenance of Rs. 30 per month did not mean that she had relinquished her share. That apart, even if a share has been allotted to a person who is not entitled to it, it can be no ground for saying that the partition was illegal or void. Such a partition may be voidable at the instance of the members affected by it but the department has no locus standi to hold that such a partition was void ab initio. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to call for a reference on this question because even if the department s contention is accepted it will not affect the partial partition carried out by the assessee. We, accordingly, decline to call for a reference on the question of law suggested in these applications. The applications are accordingly dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 100 in each.
-
1973 (8) TMI 39 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reopening Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... g Yes would justifiably cause apprehension that the act of the Commissioner is a mechanical act. In order to obviate this impression and to infuse more confidence in the assessee, it would be proper if the Commissioner also briefly states why he has given his sanction to the proceedings under section 147, thus avoiding all arguments in courts of law whether he applied his mind or he would have been satisfied in the circumstances of the case or not. The writ petition is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Mr. Dasaratharama Reddi very properly refrained from referring to the merits of the final order as that is the subject matter of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and confined himself only to the jurisdiction of the officer to reopen the proceedings under the impugned notice. This order will not preclude the petitioner from agitating every possible question which arises on the merits in the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
-
1973 (8) TMI 38 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... sary for the department to locate its exact source. In the instant case, as I have discussed above, the materials, the facts and the circumstances, as discussed in the orders of the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were sufficient to indicate that the credit entries to the tune of Rs. 45,900 found in the books of account of the assessee-firm could be added to the income of the assessee once the explanation put forward by it was not found to be satisfactory. In that view of the matter, the question of law referred to this court is answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the department. It is held that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the sum of Rs. 45,900 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The assessee must pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 150 only. S. K. JHA J.--I agree. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (8) TMI 37 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Act Of 1922, Act Of 1961, Change Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ge of this section clearly provides that the new Act will apply in regard to the imposition of penalty in respect of any proceeding of any assessment which is completed on or after the 1st day of April, 1962. There is clear emphasis on the date of the completion. In our cases the proceedings were completed after April 1, 1962. In view of the authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court it is not necessary to notice the decisions in Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. L. Gupta and Sons, Commissioner of Income-tax v. National Exhibitors and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Manoharlal and Co. in any detail because they have merely followed the Supreme Court s decision in Jain Brothers case . We, accordingly, hold that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that no penalty could be imposed under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for default under section 18A(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (8) TMI 36 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Act Of 1922, Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... fault committed in the past in respect of assessment years 1955-56, 1957-58 and 1960-61. We may also point out that as far back as 1948, the Madras High Court had taken the view in C. V. Govindarajulu Iyer v. Commissioner of Income-tax, that so long as the proceedings under section 34 relate to the assessment for the same period as the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer would be competent to levy a penalty on any ground open to him under section 28(1), even though it relates to the prior proceedings. The view taken by the Tribunal, therefore, on the interpretation of section 271(1)(a) was correct and it must be held that in reassessment proceedings the original default committed by an assessee in not filing the return can be penalised. In view of these conclusions we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner of Income-tax. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1973 (8) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Distributable Surplus, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ory building, instead of distributing the same to its shareholders, unreasonable. We do not see any reason why such expenses which have to be incurred by the company in the near future cannot be taken into account in considering whether it was reasonable for it to declare the dividends from out of its profits. In our opinion, while concluding that, considering the smallness of the profits earned by the assessee in the relevant years, it was not reasonable for it to declare any dividend, the Tribunal did not take any irrelevant material into consideration. The finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is not vitiated in any manner. It is apparent that on this finding the Income-tax Officer was not justified in making an order making the company liable to pay super-tax under section 23A of the Income-tax Act. We accordingly answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1973 (8) TMI 34 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Voluntary Disclosure Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... the penalty to the minimum imposable under the Act, there was no further scope for any reduction. The assessee could not have been absolved from penalty because on its own admission it had rendered itself liable to penalty. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, could not allow any further relief to the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee stated that the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs offered by the assessee to be taxed was not its income. The offer was made only to avoid harassment and to purchase peace. There is absolutely no material on the record for such a contention. The assessee had clearly stated in its application that it had earned income of Rs. 6 lakhs which had been kept outside its account books and it does not now lie in its mouth that the disclosure made by it did not represent income. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1973 (8) TMI 33 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
" Whether the date of service of the assessment order on the petitioner should be May 19, 1966, or May 22, 1966? " - The short question for consideration is whether Basudeb had any authority to receive the notice on behalf of the petitioner on May 19, 1966. It is the duty of the department to establish that service was made either on the assessee himself or on somebody duty authorised by him to receive such notice. The petitioner has been throughout contending that though Basudeb is a partner in one of the firms in which the petitioner is a partner he had no authority to receive the assessment order on his behalf. - In the absence of any evidence that Basudeb had due authority on behalf of the petitioner to receive summons, the question of law must be answered in favour of the petitioner by saying that the service of the assessment order on the petitioner was on May 22, 1966, and not on May 19, 1966.
-
1973 (8) TMI 32 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - explanation regarding cash credits in the accounts was rejected and the amounts were assessed as assessee's income - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, applied to the applicant - Our answer to the question referred is in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
-
1973 (8) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,03,255 paid by the assessee for the purchase of loom hours was revenue expenditure and hence deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? " - question, has to be answered in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee
-
1973 (8) TMI 30 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
(1) Whether, section 143 is a substantive section or it is merely a procedural section ? (2) Whether section 143 is directory or mandatory; (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner whereby the assessment was only set aside for being made de novo but was not annulled ?
-
1973 (8) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in excluding the income from property from the total income from the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1962-63 and the value of this property for wealth-tax purposes for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963- 64 respectively ? " - Whether individual property can be converted into that of joint family by a declaration in will - If the assessee's intention was to treat his individual property as joint family property in future, it has to be given effect to and the property must be treated as having being merged with the joint family property - Question answered in the affirmative
-
1973 (8) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
When penalty is levied on the registered firm treating it as unregistered, whether penalty for same offence can be levied on the partners – held that penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied, once in the hands of the firm and again in the hands of its partners.
-
1973 (8) TMI 27 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - " 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the proceedings initiated under section 35 are ab initio void ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was legally bound to communicate the original order of assessment recording the case ? " - We answer the first question in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. We answer the second question also in the negative. Since the assessee had not been prejudiced in any manner by the nil proceedings recorded by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer on December 10, 1967, we do not think there was any obligation on the part of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to have communicated that order to the assessee though even in such cases it is desirable to do so
-
1973 (8) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Carry Forward and Set Off - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was entitled to the set-off of speculation loss of Rs. 26,947 determined for the assessment year 1962-63, against speculation profit made in the year under reference ? " - we answer the question referred to us in each of these four references in the negative and against the assessee
-
1973 (8) TMI 25 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Reassessment notice issued without the satisfaction of the commissioner - Validity of reassessment notice issued under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment made on the assessee under section 34 was not valid in law ?
|
