|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 85 of 85 Records
-
1975 (1) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... The scope and ambit of the question framed by this court in this case is a narrow one in view of the expression as such used therein. Therefore, we are concerned with questions, namely, as to whether the period of limitation should begin to run from January 14, 1965, if so, whether the instant appeal was filed out of time. The case of the assessee is that the notice of demand was received by the assessee on January 14, 1965, and the appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on February 16, 1965, and, therefore, it must be held it was time-barred inasmuch as we cannot take any notice of the alleged fact, namely, that the assessment order was received by the assessee on the 16th January, 1965, and not along with the demand notice for the reasons already stated. In this view of the matter, our answer to the question is in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1975 (1) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act ... ... ... ... ..... ust that it should provide benefit for nothing or less than its costs. We may refer to CIT v. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust 1955 27 ITR 279 (Bom), in support of the above proposition. We, accordingly, find no merit in this submission as well, of the counsel for the accountable person. Reservation of the right to receive monthly maintenance having not been confined to the income of one or some of the trust properties, it cannot be said that some particular property is subject to the obligation for payment of maintenance. In the result, all the properties are subject to the obligation of providing maintenance. Hence, we find that all the properties settled on trust on the date of execution of the trust by Miss Oliphant would be deemed to have passed on her death. For the reasons given above, we answer the question referred to the High Court in favour of the revenue and against the accountable person. The revenue will be entitled to receive Rs. 300 as costs of this reference.
-
1975 (1) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accounting Year ... ... ... ... ..... m is dutiable as an item of free estate, and (ii) value of the share, less the sum, is dutiable as in the preceding paragraph. We, therefore, answer the question referred by saying that for the purpose of determining the duty payable by the personal representative (widow) of the deceased the share of the deceased in the firm, Messrs. Talbot and Co., including its goodwill, valuation should be made in accordance with the provisions of the partnership deed dated December 14, 1952, but for the purpose of determining the liability of the surviving partners (the respondents herein) for payment of duty in respect of the benefit accruing to them due to the death of the deceased the market value of the goodwill less the value thereof as mentioned in the said deed should be taken into account for the purpose of valuation, and we answer the question accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not propose to make any order for costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.--I agree.
-
1975 (1) TMI 2 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Cost Of Improvement ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee who has been in default. When the foundation for further action by the TRO is the certificate issued by the ITO and against the assessee in default mentioned in such certificate, he has no authority to proceed beyond the certificate and to try to enforce the demand against a person whose name does not appear in the certificate. On the facts which are not in dispute, the action of the TRO was clearly unauthorised. The view taken by the learned single judge also finds support from a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1973 87 ITR 101 (Kethmal Parekh v. TRO). We ascertained from Sri S. R. Rajasekhara Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the department, that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has been accepted by the department and no appeal has been preferred against it. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single judge. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee, Rs. 250
-
1975 (1) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... le 1 D applies to a case where the equity share is not quoted in the share market and is of a company other than investment companies or managing agency companies. In such a case, the value of the liability as shown in the balance-sheet of the company shall be deducted from the value of its assets appearing in the same balance-sheet and the resultant amount multiplied by the paid-up value of equity share shall, be the break-up value of each unquoted equity share. The word shall in the latter part of the Rule is not always mandatory and, in the context, it can be read as having the effect of may . Where there is no guideline for determining the market value apart from what is indicated in s. 7(1), the wealth basis may well be taken as the criterion for determining the value of unquoted equity shares of the company. That will depend upon the circumstances of each case. We are, in any case, unable to see any vires of the rule being involved. On that view, the writ is dismissed.
|
