|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 219 Records
-
1991 (11) TMI 39
Issues:
Interpretation of section 230A of the Income-tax Act regarding the requirement of a tax clearance certificate for registration of property conveyance valued over Rs. 2 lakhs under the Indian Registration Act.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the necessity of an income-tax clearance certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act for the registration of a property conveyance valued over Rs. 2 lakhs. The petitioners, heirs of the deceased property owner, argued that as per the Hindu Succession Act, each heir inherited a quantified share of the property, making them individual owners of specific shares not exceeding Rs. 2 lakhs each. They contended that the requirement of a tax clearance certificate should not apply in their case. The petitioners relied on a precedent where it was held that individual owners of definite shares in property could transfer their shares without needing a tax clearance certificate if the value of each share was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The total value of the property in question was Rs. 5,25,000, and each heir inherited a share less than Rs. 2 lakhs, making the tax clearance certificate unnecessary.
The Additional Government Pleader argued that the property conveyance document presented for registration transferred the right, title, and interest of the vendors in a property valued over Rs. 2 lakhs, necessitating the production of a tax clearance certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act. However, the petitioners contended that the requirement of the tax clearance certificate should not apply to them as each heir inherited a specific, quantified share of the property, and the combined value of their shares did not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs. The court agreed with the petitioners, emphasizing that each heir was a complete owner of a quantified share not liable for fluctuation and that the value of each share was less than Rs. 2 lakhs due to the total property value being Rs. 5,25,000. Therefore, the court held that the direction to produce an income-tax clearance certificate was not justified, and the property conveyance document should be registered without such a certificate. The writ petition was allowed accordingly, with no costs imposed.
-
1991 (11) TMI 38
The High Court of Gujarat held that the expenditure of Rs. 32,382 for "Guest house expenses" by a private limited company providing facilities to staff members is a trading expense deductible under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal both confirmed this view, ruling against the Revenue. The question posed was answered in the affirmative with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 37
Issues:
1. Valuation of quoted equity shares based on different stock exchange quotations.
2. Valuation of the assessee's interest in partnership firms/associations of persons.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The case involved the valuation of quoted equity shares of limited companies based on Poona Stock Exchange quotations instead of Bombay Stock Exchange quotations. The Tribunal reversed the Wealth-tax Officer's and Commissioner's orders, upholding the use of Poona Exchange quotations. The High Court emphasized that valuation of shares on a stock exchange should normally be based on the price prevailing on the base date, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. The court noted the absence of statutory guidelines favoring a specific stock exchange in India, unlike the UK. The Central Board of Revenue's circular was referenced, but it did not address situations with multiple stock exchanges in a state. The court concluded that the Tribunal's preference for Poona quotations was justified, and no legal question necessitating reference had arisen.
Issue 2: This issue pertained to the valuation of the assessee's interest in partnership-firms/associations of persons as per Wealth-tax Rules. The dispute centered on whether the provision for taxation should be reduced by the advance tax paid while determining the value of assets. The Department argued for a reduction, claiming that excluding advance tax without reducing tax liabilities would provide a double benefit to the assessee. However, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's stance, emphasizing the literal and strict construction of taxing statutes. The court cited previous High Court decisions and concurred with the view that tax payable should mean gross tax without deducting advance tax paid. It upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that it was bound by the jurisdictional court's ruling. Consequently, the applications were dismissed without issuing a rule.
-
1991 (11) TMI 36
Issues:
1. Valuation of unquoted shares under the Wealth-tax Act.
2. Interpretation of rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 regarding deduction of liabilities including advance tax.
3. Disagreement on the meaning of "tax payable with reference to the book profits" in the context of rule ID.
Valuation of Unquoted Shares:
The judgment dealt with applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act regarding the valuation of unquoted equity shares. The controversy revolved around the computation of the market value of such shares held by the assessees. The Central Board of Direct Taxes formulated rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 to provide a statutory formula for determining the value of unquoted shares based on the company's balance sheet. The key issue was the interpretation of the expression "tax payable with reference to the book profits" in the context of rule ID.
Interpretation of Rule ID:
The main dispute centered around whether the provision for taxation in the balance sheet should consider the net tax after deducting advance tax or the gross tax payable in its entirety. The court analyzed the language of rule ID and explained that the provision for taxation should only include the gross tax leviable with reference to the book profits, disregarding any excess provision or advance tax paid. The court emphasized that tax laws are to be strictly construed without room for equity or sentiments, and the interpretation should be in favor of the assessee.
Meaning of "Tax Payable with Reference to the Book Profits":
The court examined the conflicting views of various High Courts on the interpretation of clause (ii)(e) of Explanation II to rule ID. It referred to decisions by the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, which favored excluding advance tax paid from the provision for taxation in the balance sheet. The court disagreed with the views of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Karnataka High Court, which supported including advance tax in the provision for taxation. It upheld the interpretation that the liability mentioned in clause (ii)(e) should be treated in its entirety, following the precedent set by the Bombay High Court.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal's refusal to refer the matter to the High Court was deemed correct, considering the settled law on the issue. The court acknowledged that the controversy persisted among different High Courts, with conflicting views on the interpretation of rule ID. Despite the pending challenge in the Supreme Court, the court summarily rejected the applications without issuing notice to the assessees, affirming the interpretation favoring the exclusion of advance tax from the provision for taxation in the balance sheet.
-
1991 (11) TMI 35
Issues involved: Whether the expenditure incurred for obtaining a techno-economic feasibility report and consultation for a soda ash plant can be considered as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.
Summary:
The High Court of Gujarat considered the case of a public limited company for the assessment year 1973-74, where the company claimed deduction of amounts paid for obtaining a techno-economic feasibility report and consultation fees as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the expenditure as capital expenditure for expanding the business. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the establishment of a new unit, even if part of the existing business, would constitute capital expenditure. The Court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal's decision was correct in law.
To be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the expenditure must be revenue in nature, laid out exclusively for business purposes, and not covered by specific sections of the Act. The Tribunal found that the company's expenditure was for acquiring a new asset, making it capital in nature. The Court agreed with this finding, stating that once an expenditure is for acquiring a capital asset, it cannot be deducted u/s 37. Citing relevant case law, the Court held that the expenditure in question was rightly disallowed as capital expenditure, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
In conclusion, the Court answered the question referred to them in the affirmative, stating that the expenditure for obtaining the techno-economic feasibility report and consultation for the soda ash plant was rightly disallowed as capital expenditure. The reference was answered accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (11) TMI 34
Issues:
1. Allowability of commission paid by the assessee-firm to an individual partner under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The case involved a partnership firm engaged in the sale and purchase of commodities and mining lease operations. The firm paid commission to one of its partners, Rashiklal, based on an agreement. The primary question was whether this commission was allowable as a deduction under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the deduction, citing section 40(b) which restricts deductions for payments made to partners. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the payment was made to Rashiklal in his individual capacity, not as a partner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the agreement and Rashiklal's individual tax return to support this conclusion.
The matter was then escalated to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, where the Department relied on a Supreme Court decision highlighting the complexities of a Hindu undivided family joining a partnership. The Tribunal ultimately held that the payment to Rashiklal should be treated as a payment to a partner, thus disallowing the deduction under section 40(b). The Tribunal emphasized that the general presumption is that payments to a karta (manager) of a Hindu undivided family benefit the family as a whole. The Tribunal's decision was based on the premise that the payment to Rashiklal, even if in his individual capacity, would ultimately benefit his undivided family.
The High Court, in its analysis, affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the payment to Rashiklal, a partner who had invested joint family funds in the firm, should be considered a payment to a partner under section 40(b). The Court noted that the firm failed to provide evidence that the payment did not benefit Rashiklal's family. The Court also highlighted that the legal position regarding Rashiklal acting as a commission agent was not relevant in this case. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, upholding the disallowance of the commission payment deduction. Justice S. K. Mohanty concurred with the decision.
In conclusion, the judgment centered on the interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, specifically regarding the treatment of commission payments to a partner in a partnership firm. The Court emphasized the general presumption that payments to a karta of a Hindu undivided family benefit the family and upheld the Tribunal's decision to disallow the deduction.
-
1991 (11) TMI 33
Issues involved:
The judgment addresses two main issues:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 40,651 incurred for serving tea and cool drinks to customers was liable to be disallowed under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the sum of Rs. 23,022 incurred as staff house expenses, including rent and water connection, was liable to be disallowed under section 37(4) of the Act.
Issue 1 - Tea and Cool Drinks Expenditure:
The assessee, a public limited company, incurred Rs. 40,651 on serving tea and cool drinks to customers and claimed it as business expenditure. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this under section 37(2B), but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed it as business expenditure under section 37(1). The Tribunal upheld this view, stating the expenditure was not for entertainment but for business, thus deductible under section 37(1). The court agreed, citing a previous case, and answered in favor of the assessee.
Issue 2 - Staff House Expenses:
The assessee spent Rs. 23,022 on a guest house for staff members. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this under section 37(4) for maintaining a guest house. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction, which the Tribunal confirmed. The Revenue argued that post-1970, such expenditure was not deductible under section 37(4). The court analyzed relevant sections and found the expenditure was covered under section 30 for rent and repairs, not falling under section 37(1). Referring to a Bombay High Court case, the court held that the expenditure was allowable under sections 30 and 31, not section 37(1), thus not disallowable under section 37(4). The court allowed deduction for Rs. 19,739 but denied for the remaining Rs. 3,283 due to lack of details.
In conclusion, the court answered both questions in favor of the assessee for the tea and cool drinks expenditure and partially for the staff house expenses, based on the specific provisions of the Income-tax Act.
-
1991 (11) TMI 32
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court
2. Validity of Attachment (Exhibit P-2)
3. Estoppel and Agreement Basis for Deposit
4. Preference of Department's Claim over Liabilities
5. Calculation of Deceased Partner's Share
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The main objection raised was that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the original petition. The court analyzed Article 226 of the Constitution, noting that clause (2) allows the exercise of power if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its jurisdiction. The court concluded that the cause of action for the petitioner arose in Cochin, where the notice (Exhibit P-7) was issued, and subsequent correspondence and remittance took place. Thus, the court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
2. Validity of Attachment (Exhibit P-2):
The petitioner did not challenge Exhibit P-2, which attached Channaiah's share in the partnership. The court noted that Exhibit P-2 was not pursued further and was only one mode of recovery. The real question was the amount recoverable as Channaiah's share, not the validity of the attachment itself. The court found no fallacy in the petitioner's omission to challenge Exhibit P-2, as it was not pursued further.
3. Estoppel and Agreement Basis for Deposit:
The Department argued that the petitioner was estopped from claiming any amount back as the deposit was made on an agreed basis. The court rejected this, stating that the petitioner was forced to deposit the amount due to the Department's unreasonable stand under section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had always made it clear that the deposit was subject to the right to claim liabilities. The court found that the Department made a unilateral appropriation without observing principles of natural justice, contrary to the understanding between the parties.
4. Preference of Department's Claim over Liabilities:
The Department claimed preference over all liabilities. The court held that the Department could only claim what Channaiah himself could have claimed from his share. The court emphasized that the Department's claim could not have a better standing than Channaiah's share in the firm, which included liabilities incurred before and necessary for the winding-up of the business.
5. Calculation of Deceased Partner's Share:
The court discussed the principles under the Partnership Act and related case law, stating that the share of a deceased partner must be settled after discharging all liabilities of the firm. The court agreed that the liabilities of the firm as on the date of Channaiah's death must be paid first, and only the balance could be divided among the partners. The court noted that the expenses incurred for maintaining and improving the estate after Channaiah's death must also be considered, though this was a factual question for the Income-tax Department to settle.
Conclusion:
The original petition was allowed. Exhibits P-25 and P-29 were quashed. The respondents were directed to settle the accounts considering the liabilities and expenses, and only the net amount due to Channaiah's one-third share should be appropriated towards his income-tax arrears. Any balance was to be refunded to the petitioner-firm within six months. No costs were awarded.
-
1991 (11) TMI 31
Issues:
1. Justification of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in recalling its order under section 35(1)(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Analysis:
The writ application before the High Court of Orissa raised the issue of whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, was justified in recalling its order dated April 12, 1989, in W. T. A. No. 28/CTK of 1988 under section 35(1)(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The appeal filed by the assessee challenged the valuation made by the Wealth-tax Officer for a property in Bhubaneshwar and Dhenkanal. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal, prompting the assessee to file an application under section 35(1)(e) alleging that the order was contrary to the indication that the matter would be remanded. The Department contended that there was no mistake apparent from the record necessitating the recall of the order. The counsel for the assessee argued that the Tribunal's failure to consider relevant materials constituted a mistake that could be rectified. The High Court held that the Tribunal's order was non-reasoned, did not consider the applicability of section 35(1)(e), and lacked any indication of a mistake apparent from the record. The Court emphasized that section 35 allows rectification of mistakes, not review or revision, and such mistakes must be manifest and evident from the records. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for rehearing to determine if the conditions for exercising power under section 35(1)(e) were met.
The judgment highlighted the importance of a clear and reasoned consideration of the legal provisions involved in recalling an order under section 35(1)(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. It emphasized that the scope of rectification under this section is limited to correcting manifest mistakes apparent from the records, not for review or revision purposes. The Court criticized the Tribunal's non-reasoned order and lack of analysis regarding the applicability of section 35(1)(e). The judgment serves as a reminder of the strict criteria for invoking such provisions and the necessity for clear justification based on the record. The decision also underscores the significance of providing detailed reasons for judicial decisions to ensure transparency and accountability in the legal process.
-
1991 (11) TMI 30
Issues:
Interpretation of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding deduction for leasehold property.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the assessee's claim for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for a property in Calcutta. Initially, the Wealth-tax Officer estimated the value of the leasehold property and included it in the net wealth of the assessee. The assessee claimed deduction under section 5(1)(iv) as a portion of the property was used for residential purposes, which was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the exemption could only be claimed for a house belonging to the assessee. They relied on a Supreme Court decision and contended that since the house did not belong to the assessee, no exemption should be granted. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 5(1)(iv) for his leasehold residential property, dismissing the Revenue's application.
During the hearing, it was argued that ownership was not a prerequisite for claiming the benefit of section 5(1)(iv). The court emphasized that a person did not need to be the exclusive owner but should have some right of ownership, not just possession. The lease in this case granted the assessee comprehensive rights, including the ability to demolish and reconstruct the building, indicating a significant level of ownership.
Citing previous judgments, the court highlighted that even possession of an interest less than full ownership could be considered as "belonging" under the Act. The court rejected the Revenue's argument that ownership was necessary for claiming the exemption, stating that possession without ownership did not render the asset exigible to wealth-tax.
The court also discussed the broad classification of ownership into legal ownership and the right to exercise ownership benefits, supporting the view that ownership could exist without full legal title. The decision concluded that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 5(1)(iv) for the leasehold property, answering the reference question in favor of the assessee.
In agreement with the judgment delivered by AJIT K. SENGUPTA J., SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. concurred with the decision in favor of the assessee.
-
1991 (11) TMI 29
Issues:
Interpretation of the Income-tax Act regarding the assessment of share income from a partnership firm in the hands of an individual or Hindu undivided family.
Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the interpretation of the Income-tax Act concerning the assessment of share income from a partnership firm in the hands of an individual or Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The assessee, a partner in two firms, contended that the share income from one firm should be assessed as income of the Hindu undivided family, not as individual income. The Income-tax Officer initially assessed the share income as individual income, which was challenged by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the inheritance of capital and past treatment of income. The Department argued that the share income should be assessed as individual income based on the Hindu Succession Act. However, the court held that the question of whether the capital was self-acquired or ancestral was a factual matter not raised earlier and could not be considered at the reference stage.
The judgment emphasized that in reassessment proceedings, all issues relating to the assessment of the assessee, including the question of status, can be redetermined. It was established that the original order of assessment becomes non est in such cases. Therefore, the appellate authorities were justified in considering the objection raised by the assessee regarding the assessment of share income in his individual capacity. The court concluded that the share income should be assessed as income of the Hindu undivided family, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Department. The judgment did not award costs and directed the transmission of the order to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
In a concurring opinion, the second judge agreed with the decision and analysis provided by the primary judge. The judgment clarified the legal aspects surrounding the assessment of share income from a partnership firm and the relevance of reassessment proceedings in determining the status for tax purposes.
-
1991 (11) TMI 28
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of the term "manufacture" under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically in relation to the claim for investment allowance by a partnership firm engaged in the production of small iron pieces from big iron ingots.
Judgment Details:
Claim for Investment Allowance:
The partnership firm claimed deduction under section 32A of the Act for the assessment year 1980-81, asserting that its machinery was used for manufacturing small iron pieces from big iron ingots. The Assessing Officer initially denied the claim, stating that no manufacturing was involved. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the operation as processing, not manufacturing. However, the Tribunal concluded that the disintegration of big boulders into small iron pieces constituted manufacturing, citing a decision of the Madras High Court. The Tribunal found that the use of a crane to convert big iron ingots into small pieces of iron qualified as a manufacturing activity, producing commercially different articles or things. The Commissioner of Income-tax sought a reference, which was accepted by the Tribunal and referred to the High Court under section 256(1).
Interpretation of "Manufacture":
The term "manufacture" under section 32A of the Act requires a transformation where a new and different article emerges with distinctive features. Not every change is considered manufacture; there must be a substantial transformation resulting in a distinct commercial commodity. Various legal precedents were cited to define manufacturing, emphasizing the emergence of a new substance or article with a unique name, character, or use. The courts have stressed that the processing of the original material must lead to the creation of a commercially different and distinct commodity to qualify as manufacturing.
Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the partnership firm's activity resulted in the production of a different and distinctive commercial commodity, meeting the criteria for manufacturing under section 32A. The Court highlighted that factual conclusions, unless proven perverse or baseless, should not be overturned in reference jurisdiction. The judgment favored the assessee, upholding their claim for investment allowance under section 32A. The decision was unanimous, with no costs awarded.
This summary encapsulates the key issues, legal interpretations, and conclusions of the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case.
-
1991 (11) TMI 27
The High Court of Rajasthan held that Central Government subsidy cannot be deducted from the cost of assets for denying depreciation or investment allowance under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on a previous case, CIT v. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd. The references were answered in favor of the assessees.
-
1991 (11) TMI 26
Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Allowance of expenses incurred in connection with arbitration proceedings as a deduction.
3. Rectifiability of errors under section 254(2) of the Act.
4. Distinction between business expenses and expenses related to arbitration proceedings.
Analysis:
1. The writ application challenged the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order modifying the income assessment for the year 1982-83. The dispute arose over the treatment of various sums received by the assessee, including an award in arbitration proceedings. The Tribunal had disallowed certain expenses claimed by the assessee, leading to further appeals.
2. The primary issue revolved around the allowance of expenses incurred in connection with arbitration proceedings as a deduction. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had modified the assessment, but the Tribunal initially held that these expenses were not to be allowed separately. The assessee contended that the expenses related to arbitration were distinct from regular business expenses and should be treated as such. The Tribunal, upon a subsequent application under section 254(2), modified its order to allow the arbitration expenses as a separate deduction.
3. The question of rectifiability of errors under section 254(2) of the Act was crucial in this case. The assessee argued that the Tribunal's failure to distinguish between business expenses and arbitration-related expenses constituted a patent mistake that warranted rectification under the said provision. However, the High Court held that the Tribunal's initial decision, though possibly erroneous, did not amount to a rectifiable mistake under section 254(2). The Court quashed the modified order of the Tribunal on this basis.
4. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between business expenses and expenses related to arbitration proceedings. The Tribunal's initial decision to disallow the arbitration expenses as a separate deduction was based on a flat rate applied to the award money. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's error in accepting the rectification application was significant, as the distinction between different types of expenses was crucial in determining the correct tax liability of the assessee.
-
1991 (11) TMI 25
Issues Involved:
1. Whether sales tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant previous year but within the time allowed under the relevant sales tax law is to be disallowed u/s 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while computing the business income of the said previous year.
Summary:
1. Legislative History and Interpretation of Section 43B:
The court traced the legislative history of section 43B, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, effective from April 1, 1984. Section 43B mandates that certain deductions, including taxes, are only allowable on actual payment. The original provisos introduced by the Finance Act, 1987, and subsequent amendments by the Finance Act, 1989, were discussed to clarify the legislative intent. The amendments aimed to address practical difficulties faced by taxpayers, particularly regarding the payment of sales tax for the last quarter of the previous year.
2. Interpretation of Proviso and Explanation 2:
The court examined the proviso to section 43B, which allows deductions if the tax is paid by the due date for filing the return u/s 139(1). Explanation 2, introduced by the Finance Act, 1989, clarifies that "any sum payable" means a sum for which the liability was incurred in the previous year, even if not payable within that year. The court emphasized that the proviso should be read harmoniously with Explanation 2, indicating that the proviso was intended to be retrospective from April 1, 1984.
3. Judicial Precedents and Legislative Intent:
The court referred to various judicial precedents, including the Patna High Court's decision in Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. Union of India, which held that the proviso to section 43B is retrospective. The court disagreed with the Delhi High Court's contrary view in Sanghi Motors v. Union of India and Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India. The court highlighted the importance of interpreting statutes to avoid unjust or absurd results and to achieve the legislative intent.
4. Tribunal's Decision and Procedural Observations:
The court noted that the Tribunal had relied on an earlier decision without providing detailed reasons. It emphasized that when the Tribunal relies on an earlier decision, it should indicate the gist of the conclusions. The court also observed that some first appellate authorities had deleted additions on the ground that the amount was not claimed in the profit and loss account, a view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. S. B. Foundry.
Conclusion:
The court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, holding that the sales tax collected and paid within the time allowed under the relevant sales tax law should not be disallowed u/s 43B.
-
1991 (11) TMI 24
The High Court of Allahabad considered a case where the Tribunal failed to address a ground raised in an appeal, leading to a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal's decision was set aside for a rehearing. The Revenue questioned this decision, but the Court dismissed the application, stating that the Tribunal's omission to consider the ground was a clear mistake.
-
1991 (11) TMI 23
The applicant sought a direction to refer questions regarding the legality of the notice service and subsequent actions by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found the service was properly done through affixation, leading to the ex parte order. The High Court dismissed the application as no violation of law was found in the service method.
-
1991 (11) TMI 22
The High Court of Allahabad allowed the application directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question regarding the disallowance of a payment made to a separate entity under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (Case citation: 1991 (11) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD High Court)
-
1991 (11) TMI 21
The High Court of Allahabad directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question regarding the value of land for their opinion. The question was whether the Tribunal was legally correct in confirming the Deputy Commissioner's order on the rate of Rs. 2.80 per square yard.
-
1991 (11) TMI 20
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the application as no question of law arose, and a pure finding of fact was recorded by the Tribunal regarding the investment made towards the construction of the house. The Department's question was not allowed to be referred to the court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal accepted the case of the assessee based on the report of the approved valuer and other relevant materials.
....
|
9911796707
