|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 110 Records
-
1974 (8) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reason To Believe, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ble at the rate of 6 per annum. So a sum of Rs. 6,000 being the interest on the amount of Rs. 1 lakh will be treated as income of the husband in view of the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iii), but so far as the balance of the income for the assessment year is concerned, namely, the rest of the interest on the remaining amount contributed by the wife in her capital account and her share in the profits of the firm for the relevant year cannot be included in the total income of her husband by reason of the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iii) or any other provision of the Act. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred is as under On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of Rs. 25,778 in the total income of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(iii) was not justified but the amount to the extent of Rs. 6,000 representing the interest on Rs. 1 lakh was to be included in the total income of the assessee. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1974 (8) TMI 29 - PATNA HIGH COURT
1922 Act, 1961 Act ... ... ... ... ..... (2) Whether an objection with regard to the place of assessment could be taken before the appellate authority, no such objection having been raised before the Income-tax Officer? Having thus reframed the questions, I must answer the first question in the affirmative and hold that the files for the years in question were legally transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi, who had jurisdiction to pass an order of assessment and to take action for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The second question must be answered in the negative, and I would accordingly hold that the objection with regard to the place of assessment could not be taken at the appellate stage, such an objection not having been raised before the assessing officer. Both the questions thus reframed are answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. The assessee must pay the costs of these references. Consolidated hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 200. UNTWALIA C.J.-I agree.
-
1974 (8) TMI 28 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Account Books, Income Tax, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... t the income actually received or receivable by the assessee from the said trust or according to the entries in the books of account of the trust. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as follows Income-tax Reference No. 7 of 1973 Question No. (1).- In the affirmative. Question No. (2).-Affirmative as to the first part of the question and in the negative as to the second part and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner. Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1973 The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and the assessee will pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner. On behalf of the assessees, the learned Advocate-General applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since substantial questions of law do arise in both these references, in our opinion, both these matters are fit for appeal to the Supreme Court and leave is granted accordingly.
-
1974 (8) TMI 27 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Gift For Education, Minor Child ... ... ... ... ..... der section 5(1)(xii) and treat the other Rs. 27,000 as gift for maintenance of the child, which, on the facts of this case, was not permissible to be exempted under the said provision of law. For the reasons stated above, I would answer the other three questions thus Question 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the son of the assessee can be said to be a child within the meaning of section 5(1)(xii) of the Act. Question 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that exemption in respect of education as contemplated in section 5(1)(xii) of the Act can be extended to maintenance also. Question 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in my opinion, section 5(1)(xii) was applicable to the gift in favour of the son of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 27,000 only. Since nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee in this reference, there will be no order as to costs. S. K. JHA J.-I agree.
-
1974 (8) TMI 26 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... e basis of the contracts as a whole and not on the value of the contracts after deducting the cost of the material supplied to him by the Government. A similar question, as in this case, arose in the case of Brij Bushan Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and the learned judges of the Punjab High Court justified the order of the Tribunal which held that the price of the stores supplied by the military authorities must be included before applying the flat rate to the assessee s receipts. Therefore, a flat rate of 10 of profit or income was applied in that case on the best judgment basis. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the net profit should be estimated on the net income received by the assessee after deducting the cost of the material supplied by the Government from the gross amount. We, therefore, answer the reference against the assessee and in the negative. Reference answered accordingly with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1974 (8) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Political Party ... ... ... ... ..... r us to express any opinion on the question whether in a case where one of the considerations for contributing the money to the Congress party was the hope that if that party came into power, the sugar industry would not be nationalized, it could be said that the contribution was directly connected with the running of the assessee s business and as such was an allowable deduction in computing its taxable profits. Question No. 3(a) is accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the department. In view of our answer to question No. 3(a), question No. 3(b) does not arise for discussion. In the result, we answer the three questions referred to us as follows Question No. 1 in the negative and in favour of the department Question No. 2 in the negative and in favour of the department and Question No. 3(a) is answered in the affirmative and (b) returned as unanswered. The assessee shall pay the sum of Rs.200 to the Commissioner of income-tax as costs of this reference.
-
1974 (8) TMI 24 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, Legal Representative, Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... question referred to us is not a question of law and so the reference itself is not competent. A question which required so much consideration of the statutory provisions and the case law on the point and which has been argued at length by both sides cannot be brushed away as a question which does not involve any legal points. The above consideration fully demonstrates that it is essentially a question of law. For the foregoing reasons, we do not agree with the view of the Appellate Tribunal that only the balance amount of Rs. 2,73,649 should be included on account of jagir commutation belonging to late Rani Ranganayakamma and we hold that the higher commutation amount fixed subsequent to the death of the deceased should be taken as the basis for assessment of the estate duty. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the department and against the accountable person. The department-applicant is entitled to get its costs from the respondent. Advocate s fee, Rs. 250.
-
1974 (8) TMI 23 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... nable doubt but is to be in accordance with the preponderance of probabilities as applicable to a civil suit. We would, accordingly, answer the question in the negative by saying that in the facts and circumstances of the case the levy of penalty could not be deleted on the footing that it was not exigible. Our aforesaid answer may cause some injustice to the assessee. The Tribunal is the final court of fact. It did not examine the facts keeping the correct law in view. Even if the onus is on the assessee, the onus may be discharged if the explanation furnished by the assessee is accepted or if the case of the assessee is established from other materials available on record. This is a fit case which the Tribunal should hear again keeping the correct law in view. The case would, therefore, go back to the Tribunal to hear the parties after giving them notice. The reference is accordingly answered. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. B. K. RAY J.--I agree.
-
1974 (8) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ly not constitute the wealth of an assessee. However, it will constitute wealth if the debtor voluntarily repays the amount when circumstances permit otherwise, it will operate as a gift. As a result of the discussion aforesaid we would answer the two questions as follows (1) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,00,000 cannot be included in the total assets of the assessee. (2) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in accepting that the amount of Rs. 4,00,000 was in the nature of Quaraza-e-Hasana even though the amount of Rs. 1,21,800 out of Rs. 4,00,000 had been paid. As a result we answer the reference as stated above and remit this case to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for passing the consequential order in accordance with our opinion. However, under the circumstances, we direct that there shall be no order as to the costs of this reference.
-
1974 (8) TMI 21 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Account Books, Income Tax, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ere may be cases where, in the first instance, the assessing officer has information which may also lead to his finding of certain items or entries in the assessee s books of account whereupon his action under section 147(a) of the Act will still be justified. But in Bajranglal Beria s case this was a reason advanced in the context of the salient fact that the whole basis of the Income-tax Officer s action in reopening the assessment proceedings was the information derived subsequently, which alone had any nexus with the reassessment proceedings. For the reasons stated above, I must answer the question referred to us in the negative, against the department and in favour of the assessee and hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, reassessment made under section 147(a) is neither proper nor valid. The assessee will be entitled to its costs of this reference. Hearing fee assessed at Rs. 100 only. UNTWALIA C.J. --I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1974 (8) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... he bank. The discrepancy could not be reconciled and the assessee s explanation was that M made the borrowings and maintained the accounts and that the relationship between the assessee and M had become strained and, therefore, he was unable to explain the discrepancy. The sum of Rs. 31,858.78 was brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources. The question was whether penalty could be imposed on the assessee on the ground that he had deliberately supplied wrong particulars of his income. The court held that on the facts there was no basis for coming to a firm conclusion that the assessee deliberately supplied wrong particulars and, therefore, penalty could not be imposed. In view of the aforesaid two decisions, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that there was no basis for levying any penalty. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative against the department. The revenue will pay the costs of the reference.
-
1974 (8) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... nterest amount on the loans which were admittedly bogus loans. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Tribunal for the first time imposed penalty on a new ground. In that view of the matter, therefore, we do not think that the Tribunal was in error in considering the contents of the declaration for purposes of holding that the assessee committed gross or wilful neglect within the meaning of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). The result is, therefore, that we answer the reference accordingly that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in relying on the disclosure made by the assessee for purposes of holding that the assessee committed gross or wilful neglect within the meaning of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and there was no bar of section 24(11) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, to such consideration. The reference is answered accordingly in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay costs to the Commissioner.
-
1974 (8) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accumulated Profits ... ... ... ... ..... e that proper adjustment on account of under-valuation, of the opening stock for the relevant assessment year 1959-60 should have been allowed by the taxing authorities or by the Tribunal. Since, in our view, it was the assessee himself who had filed a revised return showing revaluation only of the closing stock for the assessment year 1959-60, and in which he did not want to alter the valuation of the opening stock for that year-which revised return was accepted by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner--it is not possible for us to accept the contention urged by Mr. Patil. The taxing authorities, in our view, were, therefore, justified in making an addition of Rs. 11,174 on account of under-valuation of the closing stock for the assessment year 1959-60. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (8) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment, Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... hich, in the opinion of the Tribunal, were included in the question referred 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee can be held to have concealed the particulars of its income or furnished, inaccurate particulars thereof under the provisions of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that penalty is not leviable and in vacating the penalty of Rs. 5,742 under section 271(1)(c) as was originally prayed for on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax ? In view of the aforementioned discussion, we answer the second question in the negative, and in favour of the department. So far as the first question is concerned, it is not possible to express any opinion on it on the basis of the material contained in the appellate order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we return that question unanswered. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1974 (8) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t property in question. In the premises, the question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative in the light of the observations made aforesaid and in favour of the assessee. As regards question No. 2 the Tribunal was in error in not taking the undivided character of the property into consideration and the Tribunal was in error in not appreciating that after the previous decision of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, there were no evidence or factors to indicate any change or departure from the said decision on the facts of this case. So far as the question No. 3 is concerned, we answer it by saying that the Tribunal misinterpreted the chance of the property being got back without taking the clause for option for renewal and without taking the other relevant factors as indicated above into consideration. This is also answered in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case each party will pay and bear its own costs. JANAH J.--I agree.
-
1974 (8) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Legal Representative, Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, Share Income
-
1974 (8) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... oluntarily and on the grounds of commercial expediency, and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business, may yet be expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade...... We are of the view that the facts stated above fully satisfy the test laid down in this case. We, accordingly, hold that, (1) in respect of the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 the sum of Rs. 13,789 and Rs. 16,587 are not allowable deductions under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act and (2) except to the extent of Rs. 1,004, Rs. 5,070, Rs. 2,352 and Rs. 6,716 referable to the excess of amounts paid over and above the income of the fund and which was charged to the profit and loss account in the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65, respectively, the balance of the amount in these assessment years are not allowable deductions. We answer the reference accordingly. As the revenue has succeeded in substance, it will be entitled to its costs. Counsel fee Rs 250.
-
1974 (8) TMI 13 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ts have been brought on the statute book, we cannot agree with the learned advocate for the revenue that this could be said to be a mistake apparent on the record of the case . In that view of the matter, therefore, we have to answer the question referred to us by the Tribunal in the negative and against the revenue. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax shall pay costs of this reference to the assessee. Mr. Kaji, the learned advocate on behalf of the revenue, at this stage made a request to us for a certificate of leave to go to the Supreme Court in appeal from this judgment under section 29 of the Wealth-tax Act. Having regard to the substantial question of law which has arisen in this reference and also having regard to the fact that it will have effect on many proceedings of assessment, which have been sought to be rectified under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, we think that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. The certificate asked for is accordingly granted.
-
1974 (8) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Diversion By Overriding Title, Right To Receive ... ... ... ... ..... his behalf but on behalf of the partners of the sub-partnership. The facts in the present case are much stronger than those in Murlidhar s case 1966 62 ITR 323 (SC). In Murlidhar s case 1966 62 ITR 323 (SC), the sub-partners were to share the profits and losses which came to the share of M, while in the present case after the execution of the deed of gift no part of the managing agency commission was to ever accrue or arise to the assessee. In fact once the deed of gift was executed the right to share in the managing agency commission became absolutely vested in the married daughters to the total and entire exclusion of the assessee. That being the position, in our opinion, after the deed of gift the amounts receivable towards the 7 1/2 share in the managing agency commission cannot be included in the income of the assessee. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred is in the negative. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee. Question answered in the negative.
-
1974 (8) TMI 11 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Income Returned ... ... ... ... ..... mated as the correct income of the appellant, is not as a result of any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the appellant and in the circumstances we hold that penalty is not attracted in this case. After having perused the only materials which are available in the case, as are to be found in the assessment order (annexure A to the statement of the case), I have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, arrived at the right conclusion by rightly applying the law as enunciated above. For the reasons stated above, I would answer the question under reference in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and hold, that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. There would be no order as to costs of this reference. S. K. JHA J.-- I agree. Question answered in the affirmative.
|
