|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 360 Records
-
1991 (3) TMI 60
Issues:
Competency of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain an appeal regarding the grant of interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The case involved a departmental reference regarding the assessment of the assessee for the year 1972-73. The Income-tax Officer treated the assessee-company as not substantially interested to the public based on the articles of association. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal had already decided on this issue, which was not part of the current reference.
The main issue in the reference was the non-payment of interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Officer despite a refund being due to the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in response to the appeal filed by the assessee, directed the Income-tax Officer to pay the interest claimed.
The Department contended in the appeal before the Tribunal that the appeal against non-payment of interest was not competent. They relied on a Full Bench judgment which interpreted the expression "denying his liability to be assessed under the Act" in a specific manner. However, the Tribunal, following precedents, confirmed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order.
The counsel for the Revenue argued that the appeal was not competent as per the Full Bench judgment's interpretation. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee relied on subsequent judgments to support the competency of the appeal against the levy of interest under section 214.
The High Court observed that the Department was liable to pay interest under section 214, and there was no valid reason to contest the direction for payment of interest. The Court criticized the Department for not fulfilling its obligation to grant interest on the excess payment of advance tax.
The Court noted that the appeal filed by the assessee had multiple grounds, and the non-payment of interest was just one of them. They considered the various expressions used in the relevant sections to determine the competence of the appeal.
Referring to previous judgments, the Court concluded that the appeal against the levy of interest under section 214 was indeed competent in this case. They upheld the Tribunal's decision and answered the question in favor of the assessee based on the precedent set by previous judgments.
In conclusion, the Court found in favor of the assessee regarding the competency of the appeal against the non-payment of interest under section 214. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and previous judgments, emphasizing the Department's obligation to pay interest on excess advance tax.
-
1991 (3) TMI 59
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions related to super tax rebate on dividends.
2. Allocation of donations for relief under section 88 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Disallowance of head office expenses on advertisements treated as charity.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of provisions related to the withdrawal of super tax rebate on dividends. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question to the High Court regarding the withdrawal of super tax rebate on dividends paid by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal based its decision on a previous judgment of the Bombay High Court under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee argued that the dividends paid during the assessment year were deemed dividends from earlier accounting years, and therefore, should not be included in the calculation of rebate reduction. The Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the inclusion of these dividends in the calculation, leading to the dispute. However, the High Court could not reach a conclusive decision due to the lack of relevant data and documentary evidence. The Court directed the Tribunal to rehear the appeal after obtaining the necessary documents to make an informed decision.
Issue 2:
Another question raised before the High Court was the allocation of donations for relief under section 88 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal had allocated a specific amount out of total donations to the agricultural section and allowed relief only on a portion of it. Citing relevant legal precedents and circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the counsel agreed that the Tribunal erred in its allocation, and the High Court was required to answer this question in favor of the assessee. The Court, in line with the Supreme Court judgment and circulars, ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue.
Issue 3:
The final issue concerned the disallowance of head office expenses on advertisements treated as charity. The Tribunal had disallowed a portion of the expenses under the premise of treating them as charity. The counsel argued that a previous judgment in a similar case favored the assessee, and the High Court should rule in favor of the assessee on this matter as well. The Court, considering the precedent and the arguments presented, ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue, directing that the disallowed amount should not be treated as charity.
In conclusion, the High Court addressed multiple issues related to income tax provisions and their application in the given case. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper interpretation of tax laws, the necessity of relevant evidence in legal proceedings, and the significance of legal precedents in determining the outcome of tax disputes.
-
1991 (3) TMI 58
The High Court of Allahabad delivered a judgment on an income tax penalty case. The court addressed two questions posed by the Tribunal. Regarding the first question, the court found that the principle from the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali does not apply due to the introduction of an Explanation in the Income-tax Act. For the second question, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty of Rs. 75,000 was cancelled.
-
1991 (3) TMI 57
Issues:
1. Whether the assessee can be termed as a 'body of individuals' or as an association of persons under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?
2. Can the assessee be charged wealth-tax on the basis that it constitutes an 'individual'?
3. Whether the assessee can be taxed as an 'individual' even if it is considered an 'association of persons'?
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the wealth-tax assessments of the assessee for the years 1962-63 to 1970-71. The Tribunal referred questions of law to the court regarding the classification of the assessee under the Wealth-tax Act. The counsel for the assessee cited precedents in favor of the assessee's classification, while the Revenue's counsel argued for a reconsideration based on Supreme Court decisions. The court analyzed Supreme Court decisions related to trusts and emphasized the distinction between trust cases and the case of a club. The court found that the decisions cited by the Revenue did not apply to the present case, and the Madras High Court's view was not binding. The court held that the assessee club is not an assessable entity under the Wealth-tax Act and cannot be taxed as such, based on the precedents established by the court in previous judgments.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the club is not liable to be taxed as an individual under the Wealth-tax Act. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant precedents and the distinction between different types of entities under the Act. The court did not award costs in this matter.
-
1991 (3) TMI 56
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Revenue sought direction for a question regarding upholding of an order by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal had followed its earlier decision, and since a reference application had already been dismissed, the court found no question of law arising and thus dismissed the income-tax application.
-
1991 (3) TMI 55
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of condoning the delay in filing an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Summary:
The High Court of Allahabad heard a writ petition challenging the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order dismissing an application for condoning the delay in filing the application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal had disposed of the appeal on April 22, 1987, and the application under section 256(1) was filed on November 17, 1987, beyond the sixty-day limit. The petitioner explained that the order was served on an individual not connected to the firm and was only handed over to the petitioner later. The Court noted that if the petitioner's explanation was true, there was no delay as service should have been to a partner of the firm as per section 282(2)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal had not addressed these facts but dismissed the application solely on the ground of lacking power to condone delay beyond thirty days of the limitation period.
The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing the Tribunal to review the application on its merits in light of the observations made. The writ petition was allowed without costs, and the petitioner's counsel was to receive a certified copy of the order upon payment within one week.
-
1991 (3) TMI 54
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Tribunal to consider whether sales tax paid in a subsequent year can be deducted in computing taxable income for the assessment year 1984-85, in light of Explanation 2 to section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Reference ordered, no costs. [Case citation: 1991 (3) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD High Court]
-
1991 (3) TMI 53
The High Court of Allahabad ruled that the lease rent received by the official receiver should be assessed under the head "Other sources" and not "Profits and gains of business." The official receiver should be taxed as an individual, not as an association of persons. The judgment was delivered by B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J. and the reference was ordered accordingly with no costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 52
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejected an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the deduction of capital subsidy from the cost of plant and machinery for development rebate. The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on previous court rulings. No referable question was found, and the application was rejected with no costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 51
Issues:
1. Validity of notices issued under section 148(1) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70.
2. Requirement of communicating reasons for reopening assessments under section 148(2) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Contention regarding the applicability of section 41 of the Income-tax Act to the case.
4. Argument on the merits of reassessment proceedings being based on a change of opinion.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the validity of the notices issued under section 148(1) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70. The Income-tax Officer sought to reopen the assessments based on undisclosed facts related to loans taken by the assessee from various creditors, which were later written off as bad debts. The petitioner contended that revised returns were filed along with a request for reasons for reopening the assessments. The court held that the reasons recorded under section 148(2) must be communicated to the assessee to enable them to challenge the validity of the reassessment proceedings effectively.
2. Regarding the communication of reasons for reopening assessments, the court emphasized the importance of providing the assessee with the recorded reasons under section 148(2) of the Income-tax Act. While material or information need not be communicated immediately, any evidence to be used against the assessee must be shared, allowing them an opportunity to rebut. This requirement was deemed necessary to uphold the principles of natural justice. The court directed the Income-tax Officer to provide a copy of the recorded reasons to the petitioner promptly, allowing the petitioner to raise further objections and present their case before final orders are passed.
3. The petitioner's counsel argued against the applicability of section 41 of the Income-tax Act to the case, contending that reassessment proceedings were merely based on a change of opinion. However, the court refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the case at that stage. The court noted that the petitioner had not explicitly stated that the amount in question was not reflected as a trading liability in the account books. As such, the court advised the petitioner to raise all relevant questions of fact and law before the Assessing Officer for consideration.
4. The court refrained from delving into the merits of the case or expressing an opinion on whether reassessment proceedings were solely based on a change of opinion. The judgment highlighted that the petitioner should present all relevant arguments and evidence before the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs, leaving the petitioner to address the issues raised during the reassessment proceedings before the appropriate authority.
-
1991 (3) TMI 50
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Assessing Officer to stay assessment proceedings for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 until the petitioner's stay application before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and application under section 144A are decided. The Tribunal and Deputy Commissioner were given three months to dispose of the applications, and assessment proceedings were stayed for four months or until both applications are decided. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
-
1991 (3) TMI 49
The High Court of Karnataka ruled that the relinquishment of a share in a firm due to its reconstitution does not amount to a gift under the Gift-tax Act and is not taxable. The decision is based on a previous court ruling in D. C. Shah v. CGT [1982] 134 ITR 492.
-
1991 (3) TMI 48
Issues:
1. Validity of notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax
2. Applicability of amendments in the Wealth-tax Act to pending proceedings
3. Interpretation of valuation rules for immovable properties under the Wealth-tax Act
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the validity of two notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax to a petitioner regarding the valuation of immovable properties for the assessment year 1987-88. The petitioner, a partner in a dissolved partnership firm, had received certain properties in lieu of his share. The dispute arose regarding the valuation method for properties under the personal occupation of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner sought to value the properties based on market value, while the petitioner argued for valuation as per Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act. The petitioner contended that the notices were invalid due to the retrospective application of the amendments in the Act.
2. The main contention in the judgment revolved around the applicability of the amendments introduced in the Wealth-tax Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, to pending proceedings of previous assessment years. The petitioner argued that the changes in valuation rules, particularly for immovable properties, should apply retrospectively. The petitioner relied on decisions from various High Courts to support the proposition that procedural provisions like Section 7 and Schedule III should have retrospective effect. However, the Assistant Commissioner maintained that the new rules in Schedule III only applied from April 1, 1989, and not to assessments of previous years.
3. The judgment delves into the interpretation of valuation rules for immovable properties under the Wealth-tax Act. It compares the previous Rule 1BB, which determined the value of houses based on net maintainable rent, with the new rules in Schedule III introduced by the 1989 Amendment Act. The court noted that while there were minor differences in the rules, the fundamental basis for valuation remained the same - determining the probable rent the property would fetch. The court declined to decide on the retrospective application of Schedule III, stating that such questions could be addressed through the prescribed procedures under the Wealth-tax Act. The court directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider the annual rent assessed by the local authority for valuing the assets in question and allowed the assessment proceedings to continue as per law.
In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the writ petitions challenging the notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner, emphasizing that the assessment proceedings should proceed according to the law, with the observation that the valuation of assets should consider the annual rent assessed by the local authority.
-
1991 (3) TMI 47
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction and limitation for imposition of penalty under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of the imposition of penalty for concealment of income.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Jurisdiction and Limitation for Imposition of Penalty
The case involved questions regarding the jurisdiction and limitation for imposing a penalty under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a private limited company, filed a return of income for the assessment year 1969-70 claiming a loss. However, during assessment proceedings, it was found that income from a house property was not disclosed accurately. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings and eventually imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,000. The issue raised was whether the law applicable for imposing the penalty should be as of the date of return filing or the initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that procedural laws, including jurisdiction and limitation, as amended at the time of initiating penalty proceedings would be applicable. Citing legal precedents, the court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that procedural laws are generally retrospective and apply to pending proceedings. Therefore, the court answered Question 1 in favor of the Revenue, affirming the validity of the penalty imposed within the specified time limit.
Issue 2: Justification of Penalty Imposition
Regarding the justification of the penalty imposition, the Appellate Tribunal found that the concealment of income by the assessee was evident, especially due to a wrongful claim of vacancy allowance. The Tribunal concluded that the concealment was sufficient to attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, stating that the imposition of the penalty was indeed justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, Question 2 was also answered in favor of the Revenue, upholding the correctness of the penalty imposition.
In conclusion, the court upheld the imposition of the penalty and answered both questions in favor of the Revenue, dismissing the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of applying procedural laws as of the initiation of penalty proceedings and affirmed the validity of the penalty imposed for income concealment.
-
1991 (3) TMI 46
The High Court of Allahabad allowed the application partially. Question No. 4 regarding the inclusion of jewelry in the assessment of the assessee's wife was referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. Other questions were not referred as they related to factual issues.
-
1991 (3) TMI 45
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of whether interest accrued to the assessee during the accounting year when suits were pending for recovery of loans, and the application of the mercantile system of accounting in determining taxable income.
Judgment Details:
Issue 1:
The first issue pertains to whether the interest accrued to the assessee during the accounting year when suits were pending for recovery of loans. The assessee, a financial institution, maintained its accounts on the mercantile system of accounting. The Income-tax Officer added the interest amount to the profit and loss account, which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disagreed with, stating that income of doubtful nature need not be considered for assessment. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that interest does not accrue during the pendency of suits. The High Court agreed, citing the discretion of the court in awarding interest pendente lite as per section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Issue 2:
The second issue questions the justification of delaying the accrual of interest despite following the mercantile system of accounting. The Supreme Court precedent highlighted that once income accrues, it cannot be negated by theories of real income. The Court held that carrying interest to a suspense account without treating it as bad debts is contrary to statutory provisions. The High Court distinguished this case from the present one, where suits were filed before the accounting year, and interest was pending court discretion, aligning with the Calcutta High Court's decision.
Issue 3:
The final issue concerns the inclusion of specific interest amounts in the total income of the assessee for different assessment years. The Tribunal's decision to exclude these interest amounts was upheld by the High Court, emphasizing the non-accrual of interest during the pendency of suits and the discretion of the court in awarding interest.
Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues, stating that interest did not accrue during the relevant accounting year due to pending suits for loan recovery. The Court relied on legal provisions and precedents to support its decision, ultimately answering all questions in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1991 (3) TMI 44
The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee in a wealth-tax penalty case. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lost jurisdiction to impose the penalty due to a legislative amendment. The court referred to a previous decision supporting the assessee's position. A certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court was granted due to conflicting opinions among High Courts.
-
1991 (3) TMI 43
The High Court of Allahabad ruled that the property inherited by the assessee from his father was his individual property, not joint Hindu family property. The court held that the father's interest in the partnership firm was his individual property, not coparcenary property, and therefore devolved upon the assessee as separate property. The court answered question No. 1 in favor of the Revenue and declined to answer question No. 2. The income-tax reference was disposed of with no costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 42
The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee, a private limited company engaged in sugar manufacturing, regarding the extra amount of Rs. 2,62,651 realized on enhanced sugar prices not being part of their income for the assessment year 1973-74. The court referred to a previous decision in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 188 ITR 787 (AU) with practically identical facts, and answered the question in favor of the assessee.
-
1991 (3) TMI 41
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, as the issues were already decided in favor of the assessee in previous judgments. The court held that since the Tribunal followed the High Court's decision, no referable question arose. The applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.
....
|
9911796707
