|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 274 Records
-
1989 (1) TMI 114
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer two questions of law regarding the applicability of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for consideration. The application was allowed and parties were to bear their own costs.
-
1989 (1) TMI 113
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the correctness of setting aside an order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The application was partly allowed. (Case Citation: 1989 (1) TMI 113 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1989 (1) TMI 112
Issues:
Inclusion of interest amounts received by minors in the income of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1976-77.
Analysis:
The case involved a question regarding the inclusion of interest amounts received by minors in the income of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1976-77. The minors, Master Sanjay Kumar and Master Manoj Kumar, were admitted to the benefits of a partnership firm where their father, the assessee, was a partner. The income tax officer included the share income of the minors in the father's assessment, which also included interest amounts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the inclusion of interest amounts, stating that the minors' contributions were in the nature of capital based on the partnership deed. However, the Tribunal members had differing opinions on whether the interest amounts should be included in the assessee's income.
The third Member of the Tribunal agreed with the Accountant Member that the minors' contributions and accumulated profits were not obligations to contribute capital but rather deposits. The Tribunal considered whether the interest amounts paid to the minors were connected to their admission to the partnership benefits. The partnership deed indicated that the minors contributed Rs. 10,000 each and were paid interest at 7.5%, suggesting a capital contribution. The Tribunal emphasized that the minors were admitted to the partnership for a reason, likely due to their contributions. The Tribunal also referenced the definition of a partner in the Income-tax Act, which includes a minor, supporting the connection between the minors' contributions and their admission to the partnership.
Regarding the accumulated profits, the Tribunal distinguished the case from a previous Supreme Court decision and concluded that the accumulated profits were not deposits or loans but were connected to the minors' status as members admitted to the partnership benefits. The Tribunal highlighted that the accumulated profits were allowed to be used by the firm, further supporting the connection to the partnership. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the interest amounts received by the minors should be included in the assessee's income for the assessment year 1976-77.
-
1989 (1) TMI 111
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction for provision made for retrenchment compensation.
2. Nature and certainty of liability for retrenchment compensation.
3. Applicability of analogy with gratuity and insurance premium.
4. Evaluation and quantification of contingent liabilities.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Deduction for Provision Made for Retrenchment Compensation:
The primary issue was whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction for the provision made for retrenchment compensation for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, citing the uncertainty of payment and the lack of a method to quantify the liability. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance, emphasizing that the liability was not ascertained and could not be evaluated or quantified during the accounting years in question.
2. Nature and Certainty of Liability for Retrenchment Compensation:
The court examined the nature of retrenchment and the liability to pay compensation. Retrenchment is defined as the termination of a workman's services by the employer for any reason other than disciplinary action, voluntary retirement, superannuation, or ill-health. The court noted that retrenchment is contingent on the employer's volition and may or may not occur in any given year, making it a doubtful and uncertain future event. Consequently, the liability to pay retrenchment compensation is a wholly contingent liability, not resting on any definite obligation when the business is run.
3. Applicability of Analogy with Gratuity and Insurance Premium:
The court distinguished between retrenchment compensation and gratuity. While gratuity is based on the totality of an employee's service and can be actuarially valued and discounted, retrenchment compensation arises only upon actual retrenchment and is not related to the number of years of service. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen and Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Their Workers, which highlighted that gratuity is a retirement benefit, whereas retrenchment compensation is intended to provide partial protection to retrenched employees. The court concluded that the principles applicable to gratuity cannot be applied to retrenchment compensation.
Regarding the analogy with insurance premiums, the court noted that while insurance premiums cover a contingent risk, they represent a definite outgoing. In contrast, a mere provision for retrenchment compensation, which may or may not arise in the future, does not constitute a present expenditure.
4. Evaluation and Quantification of Contingent Liabilities:
The court cited several decisions to support its conclusion that contingent liabilities, such as retrenchment compensation, cannot be considered as permissible deductions. In CIT v. Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation, it was held that a liability under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is contingent and not an accrued liability. In CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that a contingent liability does not constitute a present obligation capable of commercial valuation. The decisions in CIT v. Rajkumar Mills Ltd. and CIT v. Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. further reinforced that contingent liabilities cannot be regarded as known or existing liabilities for deduction purposes.
The court also referred to Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT, where the Supreme Court distinguished between actual liabilities in praesenti and contingent liabilities de futuro, emphasizing that only the former are deductible.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the liability to pay retrenchment compensation is a contingent liability with no satisfactory method of evaluation or quantification in any particular year of account. Therefore, the provision made for such a liability cannot be claimed as a deduction. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee, with the Revenue entitled to recover the costs of the reference.
-
1989 (1) TMI 110
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Tribunal to refer three questions for the court's opinion regarding condonation of delay, entertaining additional grounds, and computation of capital gain. The application was partly allowed. (Case citation: 1989 (1) TMI 110 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1989 (1) TMI 109
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Appellate Tribunal to refer a question regarding the assessability of income from a house property in the assessee's hands. The application was allowed. (Case citation: 1989 (1) TMI 109 - ALLAHABAD High Court)
-
1989 (1) TMI 108
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Tribunal to reframe a question regarding the assessee's entitlement to relief under sections 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The application was partly allowed. (Case Citation: 1989 (1) TMI 108 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1989 (1) TMI 107
The High Court of Allahabad allowed the application, directing the Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law to the court regarding ownership of a property in Varanasi and the assessment of its value in the hands of the assessee's wife. The questions relate to the justification of the Tribunal's decision and the passing of title to the property. (Case citation: 1989 (1) TMI 107 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1989 (1) TMI 106
Issues:
1. Whether the assessee's business was considered as ceased during the relevant assessment years.
2. Whether the disallowance of a portion of salary payments to a specific individual was justified.
3. Whether the claim for waiver of interest as a deduction in computing income was admissible.
Analysis:
1. Business Cessation:
- The assessee, engaged in hire-purchase transactions, claimed losses for certain assessment years.
- Income-tax Officer found no fresh advances or transactions during the relevant years.
- Appellate authorities held that mere collection of outstandings did not constitute business activity.
- Citing relevant case law, the High Court agreed that business activities capable of producing profit must be present to qualify as carrying on business.
- The court found that as the assessee did not engage in any profit-producing activities, the business was considered ceased during the assessment years.
2. Salary Disallowance:
- Disallowance of a portion of salary paid to a specific individual (father-in-law of the assessee) was contested.
- Authorities disallowed portions of the salary based on reasonableness and past disallowances.
- The High Court upheld the disallowance, stating that the amounts disallowed were not unreasonable or unfair.
- The disallowance was justified considering the purpose of the salary payments for realisation of outstandings.
3. Waiver of Interest Claim:
- The assessee claimed waiver of interest as a deduction for a specific assessment year.
- It was found that the business was stopped, and no recovery actions were taken for the waived interest.
- The High Court held that the claim for waiver of interest as a deduction was not admissible.
- As no recovery efforts were made, the claim for waiver of interest was deemed invalid.
- The court ruled against the assessee on all three questions referred, denying the deductions claimed.
This judgment clarifies the criteria for considering business cessation, justifying disallowance of salary payments based on reasonableness, and determining the admissibility of deductions such as waiver of interest in computing income. The decision emphasizes the need for profit-producing activities to qualify as carrying on business and highlights the importance of taking appropriate actions to support deduction claims.
-
1989 (1) TMI 105
Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure by the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Justification of not granting an opportunity to substantiate the claim for expenditure.
Analysis:
The case involves an assessee appealing to the High Court regarding the disallowance of claimed expenditure by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee had obtained a decree for recovery of immovable property with mesne profits and interest from the Supreme Court. The primary issue was whether the assessee could deduct Rs. 10,000 claimed to have been spent on litigation. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim due to lack of details, which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was inclined to accept but still required specifics. The Appellate Tribunal noted that no particular item or dates of expenditure were provided, leading to the denial of the claim due to insufficient evidence. The assessee requested more time to produce details, which the Tribunal refused, citing the ample opportunity already given.
The High Court emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the expenditure lies entirely on the assessee. Since no material was presented to substantiate the expenditure before the assessing authorities or the Appellate Tribunal, the latter was justified in rejecting the claim. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to not grant additional time, considering the ample opportunity the assessee had to provide necessary details. Consequently, the High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, ruling against the assessee on both questions referred by the Tribunal. The judgment was delivered by K. S. PARIPOORNAN J., with the Court finding no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision and directing the judgment to be communicated to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (1) TMI 104
The High Court of Allahabad allowed the application in part, directing the Appellate Tribunal to reframe a question regarding additions made in the hands of the assessee. The question to be referred is whether the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 1,33,800, Rs. 20,000, and Rs. 3,043. (Case citation: 1989 (1) TMI 104 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1989 (1) TMI 103
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding remanding a case after the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals deleted an addition based on a stock estimate report. The application was allowed partly. (Case citation: 1989 (1) TMI 103 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1989 (1) TMI 102
Issues:
Interpretation of approval granted by the Government of India under section 10(23) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a tax reference involving a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, formed to promote polo, horse-riding, and horse-breeding. The society is structured to prohibit dividends to members and transfer surplus funds to charitable institutions. The society sought approval from the Government of India under section 10(23) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The Income-tax Officer initially denied the exemption, leading to assessments on the society's income. Appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the decisions, prompting the society to appeal to the Tribunal.
Subsequently, the Government of India approved the society under section 10(23) of the Act, effective from April 1, 1965. The society argued that the approval applied to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, while the Revenue contended it was only effective from April 1, 1965, onwards. The Tribunal reasoned that the approval covered both assessment years, emphasizing the clarity of the approval date to avoid confusion between assessment and previous years. The Tribunal found in favor of the society, directing the Income-tax Officer to grant exemption after verifying compliance with specified conditions.
The Revenue sought a reference under section 256(1) of the Act, questioning the availability of the Government's approval for the two assessment years. The Revenue argued that the society could not fulfill conditions under the Act, but the Tribunal's direction to verify compliance rendered this argument irrelevant. The Revenue also contended that exemption applied only from April 1, 1965, onwards, creating a tax anomaly for the society's income preceding this date. The judgment rejected this argument, emphasizing the approval's clarity and the society's timely petition for approval before the due date, affirming entitlement to exemption for the assessment years in question.
In conclusion, the judgment affirmed the Tribunal's interpretation of the Government's approval orders, granting the society exemption for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The court ruled in favor of the society, dismissing the Revenue's contentions and awarding costs to the society.
-
1989 (1) TMI 101
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the allowability of interest paid to a Hindu undivided family by a firm where one of the partners was an individual. The application was partly allowed. (Case citation: 1989 (1) TMI 101 - Allahabad High Court, Judges: Om Prakash, R. K. Gulati)
-
1989 (1) TMI 100
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Tribunal to refer a question regarding the Income-tax Officer's justification in reopening an assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, specifically related to the computation of capital gains on jewellery. The Tribunal was instructed to draw a statement of the case for consideration. The court relied on the decision in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) and directed each party to bear their own costs.
-
1989 (1) TMI 99
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the income-tax case regarding the revaluation of closing stock in a partnership firm after the death of a partner. The court held that the authorities were justified in valuing the closing stock at market price when a new partnership was formed following the death of a partner. The court referred to a previous decision in V. C. Venkata Subbaiah Chetty & Sons v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 590.
-
1989 (1) TMI 98
Issues involved: Determination of whether the surplus remaining with the assessee after disbursement of mass stipends constitutes income in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76.
Summary:
The High Court of Kerala addressed the issue of whether the surplus remaining with the assessee, a priest at St. Joseph's Monastery, Mannanam, after distributing mass stipends, should be considered as income. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the surplus amounts were indeed the income of the assessee for the respective years. The assessee contended that the remittances received were voluntary and casual, not necessarily constituting income. The Tribunal referred the legal question to the High Court for decision.
The Court examined the nature of the remittances and the legal provisions related to income. It noted that the definition of "income" under section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act is inclusive and wide-ranging. The Court also considered section 10(3) which excludes casual and non-recurring receipts unless they arise from a profession or occupation. The Court referred to precedents and legal texts to establish that voluntary payments connected to one's occupation or vocation are considered income.
The Court emphasized that the remittances received by the priest were linked to his vocation as a clergyman, making them income. It cited previous Supreme Court decisions to support its interpretation. The Court concluded that the surplus remaining with the assessee from mass stipends constituted his income. The legal question was answered in favor of the Revenue, and the judgment was to be communicated to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (1) TMI 97
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the reopening of assessment u/s 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the dispute regarding the time limit for completing the revised assessment u/s 153(1)(b) or u/s 153(2)(a) of the Act.
Relevant Details:
1. Reopening of Assessment:
The non-resident company's assessment for the year 1967-68 was reopened u/s 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice u/s 148 on November 2, 1969, served on November 3, 1969. The revised assessment was completed on September 10, 1976, determining the total income at Rs. 4,10,390.
2. Dispute on Time Limit:
The assessee contended that the time for revised assessment had expired on March 31, 1974, u/s 153(2)(a) of the Act, making the assessment on September 10, 1976, time-barred. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that the assessment was indeed time-barred under u/s 153(2)(a) of the Act.
3. Legal Provisions:
Section 153 of the Act provides time limits for assessments and reassessments. The distinction between u/s 153(1) and u/s 153(2) is crucial, with different periods of limitation specified for each. The judgment clarifies that the provisions maintain a clear-cut distinction between assessments under u/s 143 or u/s 144 and assessments or reassessments under u/s 147(a) or 147(b) of the Act.
4. Judicial Precedent:
Referring to the case of Miri Mal Mahajan v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 186 (P & H), the Tribunal's decision was supported. It was established that in cases where a notice u/s 148 is issued, the limitation as per u/s 153(2) of the Act applies. Consequently, the revised assessment made on September 10, 1976, was deemed time-barred u/s 153(2)(a) of the Act.
In conclusion, the High Court of Madras upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the revised assessment made on September 10, 1976, was time-barred u/s 153(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment clarifies the distinct application of provisions u/s 153(1) and u/s 153(2) concerning assessments and reassessments, ensuring a clear separation of cases and their respective time limits.
-
1989 (1) TMI 96
Issues:
1. Assessment of a dissolved firm for income tax purposes.
2. Determination of the status of the assessee.
3. Allowance of depreciation for the firm.
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Kerala involved three original petitions concerning the assessment of income tax for the year 1979-80 related to a firm, United Film Exhibitors, managed by joint receivers appointed by the court. The main issue was whether the firm, which was dissolved on February 22, 1980, could still be assessed for income tax. The court examined the provisions of section 189 of the Income-tax Act, which allows for the assessment of dissolved firms. The court held that a dissolved firm can indeed be assessed for income tax, based on the statutory provisions. As a result, the original petition filed by the assessees was dismissed.
Regarding the determination of the status of the assessee, the court considered the actions and legal framework surrounding the dissolution of the firm. It was established that until the firm was completely wound up on February 7, 1980, it was still in existence for the purpose of winding up and completing pending transactions. The joint receivers, representing the firm, were appointed by the court and continued to operate the firm's business during this period. Based on the relevant legal provisions and precedents, the court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Tribunal to assess the joint receivers in the status of a firm. The court clarified that the assessment was not in the capacity of a "registered firm" but as a "firm."
Lastly, the issue of depreciation allowance for the firm was addressed. The Appellate Tribunal had allowed depreciation for the year 1979-80 on the basis that the assets were owned and utilized by the receivers on behalf of the firm. The court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation in accordance with the law. The court dismissed the original petitions filed by both the Revenue and the assessee, concluding that the questions raised were not referable questions of law. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, factual circumstances, and precedents to reach a comprehensive decision on the issues presented in the case.
-
1989 (1) TMI 95
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the interest received by the assessee in excess of the rate prescribed in clause (b) of rule 6 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, qualifies for deduction under section 80L of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Qualification for Deduction under Section 80L of the Act
Background:
The assessee, an individual employed by Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited, was a member of an approved provident fund recognized under section 58B(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The fund's rules allowed for the investment of funds and payment of interest to members. The interest received by the assessee from these investments, to the extent prescribed, was excluded from assessment, while the excess interest was assessed under the head "Salary" as per section 17(1)(vi) of the Act.
Arguments by the Assessee:
The assessee contended that the excess interest should qualify for deduction under section 80L of the Act, which allows for the deduction of interest from certain specified investments. The assessee relied on the rules of the provident fund and the decision reported in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Banerjee [1979] 120 ITR 837 (All).
Arguments by the Revenue:
The Revenue argued that the amounts received by the assessee partook the character of "salary" under sections 15 to 17 of the Act and hence, did not qualify for deduction under section 80L. It was further contended that the trustees, being the legal owners of the fund, were the ones entitled to claim the deduction under section 80L, not the assessee.
Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal referenced an earlier decision by a Special Bench and concluded that the interest amounts did not qualify for deduction under section 80L, as the interest was paid on behalf of the trustees and did not emanate from sources specified in section 80L.
Court's Analysis:
The court considered whether the interest received by the assessee could be regarded as "salary" and thus not qualify for deduction under section 80L. It was noted that the interest earned by the trust on investments was distributed to the assessee, and if such interest partook the character of "salary" under the Act, it would not qualify for deduction under section 80L.
Legal Provisions:
- Rule 6(b) of Part A of the Fourth Schedule: States that excess interest credited to an employee's provident fund account is deemed to have been received by the employee and included in their total income for that year.
- Section 17(1)(vi) of the Act: Includes annual accretion to the balance at the credit of an employee participating in a recognized provident fund as "salary" for purposes of sections 15, 16, and 17.
Court's Conclusion:
The court held that the excess interest credited to the assessee's provident fund account is deemed "salary" under rule 6(b) and section 17(1)(vi) of the Act. Consequently, it is assessable as salary income and does not qualify for deduction under section 80L. The court also distinguished the decision in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Banerjee, noting that it related to a private trust and did not apply to the provident fund in question.
Final Judgment:
The court affirmed that the interest received by the assessee in the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 in excess of the rate prescribed did not qualify for deduction under section 80L of the Act. The reference was answered against the assessee, and the Revenue was entitled to costs.
Costs Awarded:
The Revenue was awarded costs of Rs. 500.
............
|
9911796707
