|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 74 of 74 Records
-
1972 (4) TMI 14
Payment for acquisition of a capital asset i.e. for acquiring right, title and interest in lease - formal transaction which the parties have chosen will be relevant in the determination of whether the payments were capital or revenue in nature – held that payments made in this case are capital in nature
-
1972 (4) TMI 13
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Board acted within their powers when they declined to admit the fresh contentions raised at the time of hearing of the appeal before them.
2. Whether the assessment is invalid because of failure to issue notice to Srinivasan, the eldest son of the deceased.
3. Whether the assessment of the estate on the basis that it solely belonged to the deceased is valid in law.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the Board acted within their powers when they declined to admit the fresh contentions raised at the time of hearing of the appeal before them:
The court reframed the first question to focus on whether the Board exercised proper judicial discretion in declining to admit the fresh grounds raised during the appeal hearing. According to section 63(3) of the Estate Duty Act, the Board has the discretion to hold further inquiries and pass orders as it thinks fit. The court referenced several precedents to establish that appellate bodies have broad jurisdiction to entertain new grounds of appeal, even if not raised earlier, provided they exercise their discretion judicially.
The court cited *Ramgopal Ganpatrai & Sons v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax*, emphasizing that appellate courts have full jurisdiction to reverse or modify an order on any legal ground, even if not raised in the lower court. Similarly, in *New India Life Assurance Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax*, the Bombay High Court equated the powers of the Appellate Tribunal to those of a court of appeal under the Civil Procedure Code.
However, the court also noted that the discretion to admit new grounds is not absolute and must be exercised judicially. In *Phool Chand Gajanand v. Commissioner of Income-tax*, the Allahabad High Court held that the Tribunal must consider the reasons for not raising the grounds earlier and that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The court concluded that the accountable person did not provide a sufficient explanation for failing to raise the new grounds earlier, thus justifying the Board's decision to refuse to entertain them.
2. Whether the assessment is invalid because of failure to issue notice to Srinivasan, the eldest son of the deceased:
This issue was considered only if the first question was answered in favor of the assessee. Since the court upheld the Board's discretion in the first issue, this question did not arise for consideration.
3. Whether the assessment of the estate on the basis that it solely belonged to the deceased is valid in law:
Similarly, this issue was contingent on the first question being answered in favor of the assessee. Given the court's decision on the first issue, this question also did not arise for consideration.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the Central Board of Direct Taxes' decision, affirming that the Board properly exercised its jurisdiction and discretion in rejecting the additional grounds of appeal. Consequently, the other two questions did not require consideration. The court answered the first question in favor of the Revenue and returned the reference in T.C. No. 114 of 1969, awarding costs to the Revenue in T.C. No. 300 of 1966.
-
1972 (4) TMI 12
Transfer of shares to sons for a price lower than the market value - on the specific findings given by the Tribunal that the object of the transfer was not with a view to avoid or reduce the assessee's liability to pay tax on the capital gains under section 45, the conclusion of the Tribunal that section 52 will not be attracted appears to be inescapable – we uphold the view of the Tribunal and answer the reference against the revenue
-
1972 (4) TMI 11
Firm – deed – loss - allocation of shares of partners - Whether the allocation must be in accordance with partnership deed – held that, when a partnership is registered, who the partners are can be decided only with reference to the partnership deed – whether treating the share of some of the partners as belonging to others is permissible – held that clubbing of the share of some of the partners in the hands of their respective fathers was not justified - whether loss of cash by theft is a deductible expenditure – held that such loss is admissible deduction in computing the business profit, if the loss is incidental to the business
-
1972 (4) TMI 10
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessment of the income of the entire property in the hands of the assessee as the income of an association of individuals is correct.
2. Whether the petitioner should be assessed as an individual in respect of the income arising only out of his share of the property.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Assessment as an Association of Individuals
The primary question was whether the assessee, his wife, and sons, after partitioning their properties, constituted an "association of individuals" for tax purposes. The relevant legal framework includes Section 3 of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947, which imposes tax on the total agricultural income of every person, and Section 2(i) which defines "person" to include an association of individuals.
The court examined precedents to determine the meaning of "association of individuals." In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indira Balkrishna, the Supreme Court held that an association of persons must involve individuals joining in a common purpose or action to produce income. Similarly, in Mohamed Noorullah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the court found that the continuation of a business by heirs with unitary control constituted an association of persons.
However, in State of Madras v. Subramania Iyer, the Madras High Court ruled that merely managing and cultivating lands together without an inter se agreement among the owners for common exploitation does not form an association of individuals. This principle was applied to the current case, where the court found no evidence that the assessee's wife and sons had agreed to jointly exploit their lands for common benefit.
The court also referenced Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Raja Ratan Gopal, where the Supreme Court held that heirs receiving income from an estate without forming a unit for joint enterprise did not constitute an association of individuals.
In Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. M. L. Bagla, the Supreme Court assumed an association of individuals but held that they did not hold the property in a manner that would subject them to tax as an association.
Based on these precedents, the court concluded that the assessee, his wife, and sons did not form an association of individuals because there was no agreement among them for common exploitation of their lands.
Issue 2: Assessment as an Individual
The second issue was whether the petitioner should be assessed individually for the income arising from his share of the property. Given the finding that the assessee and his family did not constitute an association of individuals, the court held that the income arising from the assessee's share of the property should be assessed individually.
Conclusion:
1. The assessee, his wife, and sons do not constitute an "association of individuals" as there was no inter se agreement for common exploitation of their lands.
2. The petitioner should be assessed as an individual for the income arising from his share of the property.
The reference applications were allowed with costs, and the reframed questions were answered accordingly: Question (i) in the negative and Question (ii) in the positive.
-
1972 (4) TMI 9
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - conversion of sole proprietary business into partnership by taking proprietor's sons as partners = Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gift in question was exempt under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act - Tribunal was not right in holding that the gift was exempt from gift-tax under section 5(1)(xiv)
-
1972 (4) TMI 8
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the order of penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Once penalty proceedings are validly initiated, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could validly continue these proceedings without giving or recording fresh satisfaction - it is not necessary for him to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after an independent satisfaction about the concealment
-
1972 (4) TMI 7
Principle of priority of Crown debts - Whether the claim against compensation before Estate Abolition Tribunal is subject to limitation and whether is entitled to priority of Crown debts - Madras Act, XXVI of 1948 provides for payment of compensation which is required to be deposited with the Tribunal and the Tribunal under section 42(1) is directed to deal with claims to or claims enforceable against the compensation. For that purpose, the section prescribes a period of limitation for applications making claims to or enforceable against the compensation and also provides that if the application has not been filed in time, the claim shall cease to be enforceable. It is clear, therefore, that unless the Income-tax Officer had applied within the time limited, which was not the case, he could not claim payment out merely because of the principle of common law that the Union Government is entitled to priority of payment. The common law principle cannot override the provision of section 42
-
1972 (4) TMI 6
Property is not available with the police. Under the authority of a warrant issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the officers. of that department have taken custody of this amount from the police station. Proceedings are now pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax. These proceedings are not criminal proceedings. No case is now pending before any court. The statutory powers conferred on the income-tax authorities to deal with the seizure cannot be interfered with by the exercise of the powers under section 439 or under the inherent powers of the court under section 561 A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner in this case prays for an order directing the Commissioner of Income-tax to return the amount seized to him - no such direction can be given - revision fails and the same is dismissed
-
1972 (4) TMI 5
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the assessee-firm to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1961-62.
2. Validity of the partnership deed and specification of individual shares of partners.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and judicial precedents regarding the registration of firms.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement of the Assessee-Firm to Registration under Section 26A:
The primary issue was whether the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1961-62. The firm, constituted under a partnership deed dated January 15, 1960, included Arjandas & Co. (a firm with three partners) and an individual named Muralidhar. The partnership deed specified the collective share of Arjandas & Co. as 75 paise and Muralidhar's share as 25 paise. However, the individual shares of the partners within Arjandas & Co. were not explicitly stated in the assessee-firm's partnership deed or the application for registration.
2. Validity of the Partnership Deed and Specification of Individual Shares of Partners:
The Income-tax Officer refused registration on two grounds: (i) the partnership was between a firm (Arjandas & Co.) and an individual (Muralidhar), which was deemed illegal, and (ii) the individual shares of the three partners of Arjandas & Co. were not specified in the partnership deed. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the refusal, emphasizing the lack of specific details regarding individual shares. The Tribunal, however, recognized the partnership as valid but upheld the refusal of registration due to the absence of specified individual shares in the deed or application.
3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal relied on previous decisions (A.S.S.R. Guruswami Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax and V. M. Periasamy Chettiar & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax) to support its view. These decisions emphasized that an application for registration under section 26A must specify the individual shares of partners in the partnership deed itself, without relying on external documents or statutory provisions like the Partnership Act.
The assessee's counsel argued that these precedents were no longer valid in light of later Supreme Court judgments (Kylasa Sarabhaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax). The Supreme Court had held that the word "specified" in section 26A did not necessarily mean explicitly stated in the deed, and individual shares could be ascertained through legal principles or other relevant circumstances.
In Parekh Wadilal Jivanbhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the Supreme Court allowed for the ascertainment of individual shares through the application for registration and account books, even if not explicitly stated in the partnership deed. Similarly, in Kylasa Sarabhaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the Supreme Court permitted the use of preamble details and other clauses within the partnership deed to determine individual shares.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the refusal to look into the partnership deed of Arjandas & Co. to ascertain individual shares was overly technical and without substance. The Court held that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1961-62. The reference was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with costs awarded.
-
1972 (4) TMI 4
Issues:
Interpretation of rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules regarding valuation of interest in partnership firms for wealth tax assessment.
Analysis:
The judgment addressed the issue of whether the share of a deceased partner in agricultural lands owned by two firms should be included in the net wealth of the assessee for wealth tax assessment. The widow of the deceased partner filed a wealth tax return excluding the value of the share in agricultural lands. However, the Wealth-tax Officer added the value of the interest in the firms, including agricultural lands, to the net wealth. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the share in agricultural lands was exempt from wealth tax as firms are not separate legal entities. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the exclusion of agricultural lands from the definition of assets under the Wealth-tax Act.
The revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the interest of a partner in a firm should be valued without excluding the agricultural lands owned by the firm. The revenue contended that the net worth of the partner's interest should be determined based on commercial notions, contrary to the Tribunal's interpretation. The judgment analyzed relevant provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, including definitions of assets, net wealth, and valuation date, to determine the correct valuation method for a partner's interest in a firm.
The court examined Rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules, which outlines the valuation of a partner's interest in a firm. The rule specifies that the net wealth of the firm should be determined first, excluding agricultural lands, and then allocated among partners based on capital contribution and profit-sharing agreements. The court rejected the revenue's argument, stating that the terms "net wealth" and "valuation date" in the rule should be interpreted in line with the definitions in the Act. The judgment cited legal principles and the General Clauses Act to support the consistent interpretation of terms across statutes and rules.
Ultimately, the court held that the Tribunal correctly valued the assessee's interest in the partnership firms by excluding the agricultural lands, as per the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act and Rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules. The judgment ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the revenue to bear the costs.
-
1972 (4) TMI 3
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sale of the electrical undertaking to the Punjab Government falls in the assessment year 1955-56 when the undertaking was taken over by the Punjab Government by virtue of an option which was exercised in terms of the licence or whether it falls in the assessment year 1963-64 when the balance of the sale price was received by the assessee ?" - The answer to the question under consideration as aforementioned is that the amount became due in the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1963-64 and hence the answer to the question would be in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue.
-
1972 (4) TMI 2
Whether the sale value of albezia trees and the sale value of malavembu trees grown to protect rubber plantations, are includible as taxable receipts of the assessee along with his other agricultural income – question is answered in favour of the assessee
-
1972 (4) TMI 1
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 53,913 was a revenue receipt of the assessee of the previous year.
2. Whether the amount is chargeable under section 7 or section 10 of the Income-tax Act.
3. If the amount is chargeable under section 10, is the assessee entitled to a deduction of Rs. 53,913 under section 10(1) or section 10(2)?
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Revenue Receipt
The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative, concluding that the sum of Rs. 53,913 was indeed a revenue receipt of the assessee for the previous year. This conclusion was reached based on the fact that the commission payable to the assessee was a revenue receipt and had accrued to him during the relevant accounting year.
Issue 2: Chargeability under Section 7 or Section 10
The High Court determined that the amount payable as commission was chargeable under section 7 as salary and not under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court considered whether the relationship between the company and the assessee was that of master and servant or principal and agent. It was concluded that the assessee, as the managing director, was under the control and supervision of the company, thereby establishing a master-servant relationship. This was evident from the articles of association and the terms of the agreement, which provided the company with the authority to terminate the assessee's services and exercise control over his duties.
The judgment emphasized that the nature of employment and the extent of control and supervision were crucial in determining whether the managing director was a servant or an agent. The court cited various cases to illustrate that the control and supervision exercised by the employer need not be continuous or day-to-day but should be sufficient to establish a master-servant relationship. Therefore, the remuneration received by the assessee was classified as salary under section 7.
Issue 3: Deduction under Section 10(1) or Section 10(2)
The Tribunal, in its supplementary statement of the case, answered the third question against the assessee, holding that he was not entitled to a deduction of the sum of Rs. 53,913 under either section 10(1) or section 10(2) of the Act. Given that the amount was chargeable under section 7 as salary, the question of deduction under section 10 did not arise.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that the sum of Rs. 53,913 was a revenue receipt and chargeable as salary under section 7 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the court did not find it necessary to consider the other questions due to the conclusion reached on the primary issues.
|
9911796707
