Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1985 1985 (12) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 181 to 200 of 218 Records

• 1985 (12) TMI 39
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the Tribunal was not justified in concluding that the two separate assessment orders were not erroneous. The case involved a partnership firm with a change in constitution, not succession, as per Section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act. The judgment favored the Revenue, with costs awarded to them. (Case Citation: 1985 (12) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court)

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 38
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1975-76. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient material on record to justify the deduction, in line with the decision in CIT v. Gangappa Cables Ltd. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to uphold the deduction.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 37
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Alleged failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment year 1962-63.
  3. Competence, jurisdiction, and authority of the Income-tax Officer to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  
  The appellant, a registered partnership firm, was initially assessed for the assessment year 1962-63, with the assessment completed on March 18, 1967, under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer later recorded on December 15, 1970, that interest of Rs. 9,000 paid to a creditor on loans was not disallowed in the original assessment. The loans were later found to be non-genuine, leading the Income-tax Officer to believe that the appellant failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts, resulting in underassessment of income. Consequently, a notice under Section 148 was issued to reassess the income. The appellant challenged this notice, arguing that all material facts were disclosed during the original assessment, and the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under Section 147.
  
  2. Alleged failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment year 1962-63:
  
  The appellant contended that during the original assessment, all necessary documents, including books of accounts, balance sheets, detailed statements of accounts, and complete lists of loans with creditors' details, were produced. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment after considering these materials. The appellant argued that there was no omission or failure on their part to disclose any material fact. The reopening of the assessment was claimed to be based on a change of opinion rather than any new material fact, which is not a valid ground under Section 147.
  
  3. Competence, jurisdiction, and authority of the Income-tax Officer to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  
  The appellant challenged the jurisdiction and authority of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment, arguing that the condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 was not satisfied. The Income-tax Officer's belief that income had escaped assessment was based on subsequent findings in later years, which the appellant argued did not constitute new material facts but were rather a re-evaluation of already disclosed facts. The appellant cited several legal precedents, including CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd., Panchanan Hati v. CIT, and ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd., to support their contention that mere change of opinion does not justify reopening under Section 147.
  
  Judgment:
  
  The court concluded that the dispute was governed by established legal principles, particularly those set forth in the cited Supreme Court and High Court decisions. It was held that the appellant had disclosed all primary facts necessary for the assessment during the original proceedings. The Income-tax Officer's subsequent change of opinion, based on materials already disclosed, did not warrant reopening the assessment under Section 147. The court emphasized that the Revenue must establish that the assessee failed to disclose material facts fully and truly, which was not demonstrated in this case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and order dated February 28, 1973, were set aside, and the impugned notice dated December 20, 1970, was quashed. The court also denied the Revenue's request for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that the law was well-settled and no substantial question of law arose from the judgment.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The appeal was allowed, and the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was deemed invalid. The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148, emphasizing the importance of full and true disclosure of material facts by the assessee and the limitations on the Income-tax Officer's authority to reopen assessments based on a mere change of opinion.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 36
  
  Issues involved:
  The issues involved in this judgment are:
  1. Competency of Commissioner of Income-tax to revise an order passed by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Allowability of a sum of Rs. 94,875 as discount to subscribers of bonds issued by the assessee-Corporation as an expenditure.
  
  Competency of Commissioner to revise under section 263:
  The High Court held that orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) are subject to revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized that the Commissioner of Income-tax was competent to revise the order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) as per the provisions of the Act. The court's decision was based on the clear provision in sub-section (4) of section 125A of the Act, which states that orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner are liable to be revised by the Commissioner under section 263.
  
  Allowability of discount as expenditure:
  Regarding the allowance of Rs. 94,875 as discount to subscribers of bonds, the court referred to principles from accounting and auditing books. It was noted that when debentures or bonds are issued at a discount, the discount represents deferred interest and should be written off over the period of having the use of the money raised. The court highlighted that while the entire discount amount may not be deductible in the year of issuance, a proportionate amount should be spread over the years for which the bonds remain outstanding. The court disagreed with a previous decision and emphasized that the term "expenditure" in section 37 of the Act may cover amounts that are essentially losses and have not physically left the assessee's possession.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court answered the questions raised in the reference by stating that the Commissioner of Income-tax was indeed competent to revise the order under section 263. Additionally, the court ruled that while the full discount amount was not allowable as expenditure in the assessment year, a proportionate amount should be considered as an allowable expenditure over the period for which the bonds are issued. The judgment was made based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and principles from accounting and taxation laws.
  
  Note: The judgment was delivered by Judges G. G. SOHANI and K. L. SHRIVASTAVA of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 35
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of forward contracts as hedging contracts for set-off against other income under Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment addresses the issue of whether forward contracts for sales should be treated as hedging contracts for setting off losses against other income. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim that the losses from forward contracts were due to stock value depreciation, qualifying for set-off under relevant provisions. The Tribunal considered a circular issued under the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, allowing the set-off under specified sections. However, the Revenue argued that the circular couldn't override current enactment provisions if no actual delivery contract existed.
  
  The court deliberated on the binding nature of circulars issued under repealed enactments, emphasizing consistency with current laws. It narrowed the interpretation of the circular to align with the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring a pre-existing contract for actual delivery of goods for set-off eligibility. The court analyzed the definition of speculative transactions under section 43(5) and the significance of proviso (a) in exempting certain contracts from being deemed speculative.
  
  The judgment highlighted the absence of a clear finding by the Tribunal regarding the existence of a pre-existing delivery contract. It referred to previous Supreme Court and High Court decisions to emphasize the importance of determining this crucial fact for assessing the validity of the assessee's claim. The court concluded that until the existence of a pre-existing delivery contract is established, the question referred cannot be definitively answered. Therefore, the Tribunal was directed to ascertain the presence of such a contract before making a decision on the set-off claim.
  
  In conclusion, the court emphasized the necessity of a pre-existing contract for actual delivery of goods to qualify hedging sales for set-off under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment underscores the importance of factual determinations in tax matters and directs the Tribunal to investigate and establish the presence of such a contract before making a final decision.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 34
  
  Issues:
  1. Deduction of expenses in computing market value of property.
  2. Consideration of events post-valuation date in determining market value.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The case involved a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the valuation of a property known as 'Rewa House' in Bombay. The questions revolved around the deduction of expenses incurred in connection with the sale of the property and the consideration of subsequent events in determining the market value.
  
  2. The property was partitioned into three portions, and all portions were eventually sold for approximately Rs. 39 lakhs. The assessee claimed deductions for expenses incurred in the sale of portion 'B' and an additional payment received for floor space index. The Tribunal had to decide whether these deductions were valid in computing the market value of the property as on the valuation dates.
  
  3. The Tribunal held that the market value of the property should be based on the gross sale proceeds without deductions for expenses incurred in the sale. The additional payment for floor space index was also not eligible for deduction as it was not stipulated in the sale agreement. Therefore, the total sale price received by the assessee was considered as the market value of the property.
  
  4. The Tribunal further justified its decision by stating that events occurring post-valuation date could not be considered in determining the market value. The Tribunal provided adjustments for interest on the sale price received in instalments, resulting in a fair assessment of the property's market value.
  
  5. The High Court rejected the arguments presented by the assessee's counsel, emphasizing that the High Court's role in reference matters is advisory, and it does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the Tribunal's decisions. The High Court's function is to provide opinions on specific legal questions raised by the parties involved.
  
  6. Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision on both issues. The Tribunal was cautioned to be cautious in referring questions to the High Court when the answers are evident from existing legal precedents. The assessee was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 33
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the return filed on May 31, 1972, without accompanying statements of accounts.
  2. Consideration of the application for extension of time filed on October 1, 1971, in deciding the reasonableness of the delay in filing the return.
  
  Summary of Judgment:
  
  Issue 1: Validity of the Return Filed on May 31, 1972
  The first question addressed whether the return filed on May 31, 1972, was valid despite not being accompanied by the statements of accounts supporting the income shown in the return. The court noted that the return was not produced before them and relied on the facts recorded by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The return was described as "bald" with no basis for the estimated income of Rs. 80,000. Rule 12(1)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, mandates that returns must be verified in the manner indicated in Form No. 2, which includes attaching statements of accounts. The court held that without these statements, the return could not be taken seriously and was essentially no return at all. The Tribunal's view that the return was valid was thus incorrect.
  
  Issue 2: Application for Extension of Time Filed on October 1, 1971
  The second question considered whether the application for extension of time, filed on October 1, 1971, could be considered in deciding the reasonableness of the delay in filing the return. The Tribunal assumed that the assessee might have believed the time was extended until March 31, 1972, but the court disagreed. The court emphasized that any application for extension filed after the due date loses its sanctity and cannot be assumed to have been granted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had found no reasonable cause for the delay, and the Tribunal had not overturned this finding. The court concluded that the Tribunal was wrong to consider the late application as a reasonable cause for the delay.
  
  Conclusion:
  Both questions were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The order of the Income-tax Officer was restored, and there was no order as to costs. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, as required u/s 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 32
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the sum of Rs. 9 lakhs was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.
  2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no direction could be given to bring the capital gains to tax in these proceedings.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Capital Receipt vs. Revenue Receipt
  The primary question was whether the Rs. 9 lakhs received by the assessee from the transfer of mining lease ML 130 was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The Tribunal had held it to be a capital receipt, but the Revenue contested this finding.
  
  The court examined the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the distinction between capital and revenue receipts. It referred to the definitions and explanations provided in landmark cases like *Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT* and *Gillanders Arbuthnot and Company Limited v. CIT*. The court noted that the terms "capital receipt" and "revenue receipt" are not defined in the Income-tax Act and are not capable of precise definition. The principles established by the Supreme Court indicate that what is received for the loss of capital is a capital receipt, while what is received as profit in a trading transaction is taxable income.
  
  The court found that the Tribunal's conclusion that the receipt was a capital receipt was based on incorrect assumptions and was contrary to the evidence. The Tribunal had erred in holding that the receipt was a premium for the transfer of the lease. The court noted that the assessee had not impaired its trading structure by transferring one of its six mining leases and continued its mining business with the remaining leases. Therefore, the receipt of Rs. 9 lakhs was not a capital receipt but a business receipt.
  
  The court concluded that the Tribunal's finding was based on surmises and conjectures, and the receipt was indeed a revenue receipt. Hence, the court answered Question No. 1 in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
  
  Issue 2: Direction to Tax Capital Gains
  The second question was whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no direction could be given to bring the capital gains to tax in these proceedings. Given the court's finding on the first issue that the receipt was a revenue receipt, this question technically did not survive for consideration.
  
  However, assuming the question did survive, the court referred to the Division Bench ruling in *CIT v. Maryam Mirza*, which concluded that such a course was not permissible in an appeal filed by the assessee. Therefore, even if the question survived, the court would answer it in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court provided the following answers to the questions referred:
  1. Question No. 1: In the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
  2. Question No. 2: Does not survive. But, if it survives, then in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee.
  
  The court directed the parties to bear their own costs due to the divided success and failure.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 31
  
  Issues:
  1. Incorrect assessment and demand of property tax after the death of the petitioner's father.
  2. Dispute over the assessment of building tax and land tax.
  3. Allegation of suppression of material facts by the petitioner regarding the letting of the building.
  4. Interpretation of Section 100 of the Kerala Municipalities Act regarding assessment of property tax.
  5. Quasi-judicial nature of the assessment and appeal process under the Taxation and Finance Rules.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The petitioner's late father owned a building that became vacant after his death. The Municipal Commissioner proposed a revision of property tax, despite the petitioner's objection informing about the father's demise. The petitioner appealed against the increased tax, but notices and orders continued to be addressed to the deceased father, leading to confusion and incorrect demands.
  2. The petitioner contested the arbitrary assessment of building tax and the demand for land tax, citing provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act and the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petitioner argued that fair rent should be the basis for determining property tax, emphasizing the need for a reasonable assessment process.
  3. The respondent alleged that the petitioner suppressed facts about renting the building, but the petitioner maintained that the building was unoccupied. The respondent's reliance on tenant statements and justifications for the tax assessments were disputed by the petitioner.
  4. Section 100 of the Kerala Municipalities Act governs property tax assessment, emphasizing the annual letting value for determining tax. The judgment highlighted the need for accurate assessment based on the rent realizable by the landlord, as established in previous legal precedents.
  5. The judgment emphasized the quasi-judicial nature of the assessment and appeal process under the Taxation and Finance Rules. It outlined the necessity for a fair hearing, disclosure of relevant materials, and adherence to procedural requirements in disposing of appeals related to tax assessments.
  
  Overall, the court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's appeal, ensuring a fair assessment based on legal provisions and precedents. The judgment emphasized the importance of transparency, adherence to rules, and providing the appellant with a proper hearing before making tax-related decisions.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 30
  
  Issues:
  1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to examine new sources of income not shown in the petitioner's return.
  2. Validity of the notice issued under section 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The petitioner, a medical practitioner, challenged the notice issued by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to include income from a nursing home in her individual income for the assessment year 1980-81. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by considering a new source of income not disclosed in her return or the Income-tax Officer's assessment order. The petitioner contended that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner does not extend to examining such matters. The court referred to established principles regarding the jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, emphasizing that the power of enhancement is limited to matters considered by the Income-tax Officer. The court held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had the authority to issue the notice as the matter was expressly considered by the Income-tax Officer and formed part of the assessment order.
  
  Issue 2:
  The court analyzed whether the notice issued by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was within the scope of his authority under section 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the income from the nursing home was not part of her individual income and should not be included in the assessment. However, the court found that the Income-tax Officer had considered the matter and concluded that the nursing home income did not belong to the petitioner as an individual. The court held that the note by the Income-tax Officer formed part of the assessment order and supported the authenticity of the original assessment. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner acted within his authority in issuing the notice, and there were no grounds to quash it.
  
  In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the notice issued by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 251(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and dismissed the petition.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 29
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of rule 10(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 regarding the calculation of income for non-resident shipping company. Inclusion of various items like interest on discount, adjustment of currency, and general average in total business receipts for tax assessment purposes.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta involved the assessment of income tax for a non-resident shipping company incorporated in Japan for the assessment year 1971-72. The Income-tax Officer computed the income received in India by the assessee under rule 10(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The total income of the assessee was calculated based on the proportion of receipts accruing or arising in India on account of freight. However, the assessee contended that certain items like interest on discount, adjustment of currency, and general average should also be included in the total business receipts as they were incidental to its shipping business.
  
  The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the Income-tax Officer should have considered the non-operating revenue items as part of total receipts, directing a fresh computation of Indian income based on world income. The Revenue appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the inclusion of the disputed items in the world receipts, as they were part of the business income. The Tribunal rejected the appeal of the Revenue in this regard.
  
  The High Court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, emphasizing that the expressions "accrued" or "arisen" or "received" or deemed to be received" should be given their plain meaning in the absence of specific definitions. The Court found that the disputed items had arisen in connection with the shipping business and had been received or deemed to be received by the assessee, making them assessable to tax. The Court concluded that the items included in the total income of the assessee must be considered as receipts of its business, affirming in favor of the assessee.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court answered the question referred in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the inclusion of various items in the total business receipts for tax assessment purposes. The judgment was delivered by Judge Dipak Kumar Sen, with agreement from Judge Mukul Gopal Mukherjee.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 28
  
  Issues:
  1. Assessment of a non-resident company by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1964-65.
  2. Claim for refund by the non-resident company based on the rate of tax applied to dividend income from an Indian company.
  3. Disposal of refund applications by the Income-tax Officer.
  4. Interpretation of provisions related to tax rebate under the Finance Act, 1964.
  5. Decision on the entitlement of the non-resident company to a tax refund.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to a non-resident company assessed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1964-65, with dividend income from Indian companies forming a significant part of its total income. The company was initially taxed at a rate of 25% without any rebate, resulting in a tax payable of Rs. 76,93,229.75. Subsequently, the company sought a refund of Rs. 18,17,291.83, claiming that the tax rate should have been 15% based on the nature of the dividend-paying company and the applicable provisions of the Finance Act, 1964.
  
  The Income-tax Officer rejected the refund applications, citing that the excess tax paid was due to a lower rate of tax applied to the dividend income from the specific company. However, the company contended that as the dividend-paying company did not meet the criteria for a higher tax rate, the correct rate should have been 15%. The judgment analyzed the provisions of Paragraph D of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1964, which allowed for a rebate of 10% on dividend income from certain types of Indian companies.
  
  The court examined the conditions for the rebate under Paragraph D, focusing on whether the dividend-paying company met the requirements specified in the Act. It was established that the company in question was not substantially held by the public and was engaged in the production of mineral oil, fulfilling the conditions for the rebate. As a result, the non-resident company was deemed entitled to a refund of the excess tax paid, amounting to Rs. 18,17,291.83.
  
  The judgment concluded by setting aside the Income-tax Officer's decision, directing the rectification of the assessment, and ordering the issuance of the refund to the non-resident company within a specified timeframe. The court ruled in favor of the company, emphasizing its entitlement to the tax refund based on the correct application of the rebate provisions under the Finance Act, 1964.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 27
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of Section 44B for non-resident shipping companies.
  2. Treatment of unabsorbed depreciation under Section 32(2) and its carry forward.
  3. Distinction between business loss and unabsorbed depreciation.
  4. Interpretation of Sections 72(1), 72(2), 72(3), 32(2), and 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Applicability of Section 44B for non-resident shipping companies
  The assessees, non-resident companies engaged in shipping, were assessed u/s 44B, introduced by the Finance Act, 1975, effective from April 1, 1976. Section 44B deems 7.5% of specified amounts as profits and gains chargeable to tax.
  
  Issue 2: Treatment of unabsorbed depreciation under Section 32(2) and its carry forward
  The assessees claimed that unabsorbed depreciation and business loss from previous years should be adjusted against their profits computed under Section 44B. The Income-tax Officer denied this, stating Section 32 could not be applied due to Section 44B. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had conflicting views: in the case of American Export Lines Inc., it was held that unabsorbed depreciation constitutes business loss and should be carried forward u/s 72, while for other assessees, it was held that unabsorbed depreciation and business losses are distinct and cannot be carried forward under Section 72.
  
  Issue 3: Distinction between business loss and unabsorbed depreciation
  The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation could only be carried forward and set off as per Section 32(2) and not as business loss under Section 72. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 555, emphasizing the distinct treatment of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses.
  
  Issue 4: Interpretation of Sections 72(1), 72(2), 72(3), 32(2), and 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961
  The High Court concluded that business loss u/s 72 is the net result of computation under "Profits and gains of business," while unabsorbed depreciation is carried forward as an allowance u/s 32(2) and does not enter the computation of business loss. The court held that Section 44B does not allow unabsorbed depreciation to be treated as business loss for adjustment purposes. The question referred was answered in the negative, favoring the Revenue.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court ruled that unabsorbed depreciation cannot be carried forward and set off as business loss under Section 72 when assessed under Section 44B. The judgment was in favor of the Revenue, and there was no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 26
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether borrowed moneys are considered capital for section 80J deduction.
  2. Eligibility of plant and machinery for development rebate.
  3. Claiming section 80HH deduction without setting off losses.
  4. Interpretation of entry 31 of the Vth Schedule to the Income-tax Act for development rebate.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The court addressed the issue of borrowed moneys being considered capital for computing section 80J deduction. Referring to the decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India, the court ruled against the assessee, favoring the Revenue. However, for the second question related to interpreting section 80J, the court favored the assessee based on the decision in CIT v. English Indian Clays Ltd.
  
  2. The judgment focused on whether plant and machinery used for extracting oil by the solvent extraction process qualify for development rebate at a higher rate. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim for 25% rebate, allowing only 15% due to the machinery not being used for direct extraction from seeds. The appellate authorities, however, interpreted the entry broadly, allowing the higher rebate. The court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the entry must be read restrictively as per legislative intent, thereby ruling in favor of the Revenue.
  
  3. Regarding the entitlement to claim section 80HH deduction without setting off losses, the court clarified the question by removing the word "losses" as it did not arise from the Tribunal's order. Citing Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the deduction cannot be claimed without setting off earlier years' losses.
  
  4. The court extensively analyzed the interpretation of entry 31 of the Vth Schedule to the Income-tax Act for development rebate. The court emphasized that legislative entries must be construed according to the language used, reflecting legislative intent. Despite the assessee's argument that the entry should apply to oil extraction from oil cakes, the court held that the entry is confined to direct extraction from seeds, not oil cakes. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the need to adhere strictly to the language of the legislative entry.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 25
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court of Rajasthan considered the case of a limited company operating a textile mill, where the Income-tax Officer disallowed a total expenditure of Rs. 16,510 as entertainment expenditure, comprising Rs. 4,718 for guest house expenses and Rs. 11,310 for entertainment expenses. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the disallowance due to the lack of specific details provided by the assessee. The Tribunal, however, disagreed with the categorization of the expenses as entertainment expenditure. The court referred to the case of Devichand Bastimal, which relied on Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd.'s case for determining the nature of entertainment expenses. The court concurred with the view that mere provision of food, drinks, or refreshments to customers does not necessarily constitute entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B) of the Act.
  
  The court emphasized that the Tribunal did not focus on whether the amounts claimed as entertainment expenses were actually spent as such. It highlighted that the assessee may be entitled to certain expenses like messing expenses, hot and cold drinks, and refreshments if they are considered bare necessities, ordinary courtesy, or inferred from long-standing trade practices. The court directed the Tribunal to determine the quantum of allowed expenses based on the tests laid down in Devichand Bastimal's case and the interpretation of section 37(2B) of the Act.
  
  In conclusion, the court held that the expenses claimed by the assessee for providing hot and cold drinks, refreshments, etc., to customers and veoparies were not entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B) of the Act. The court directed the Tribunal to reevaluate the expenses in line with the principles set out in Devichand Bastimal's case and the relevant legal provisions. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs, and the answer to the question was to be returned to the Tribunal as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 24
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Nature of interest granted to Ranganayaki Ammal under the partition deed.
  2. Eligibility for relief under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act.
  3. Interpretation of "exclusive use" for residential purposes under section 5(1)(iv).
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Nature of Interest Granted to Ranganayaki Ammal:
  The court examined the partition deed dated December 31, 1951, which divided the joint family immovable properties of Bheema Naidu. The deed specified that Ranganayaki Ammal, the widowed daughter-in-law, would enjoy the family house till her lifetime without encumbrances. After her lifetime, the property would vest absolutely in her four sons. The Tribunal initially interpreted this as granting a "life estate" to Ranganayaki Ammal. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that the restriction on encumbrances indicated that Ranganayaki Ammal was given only a "right of residence" and not a typical life interest. The court noted that a life interest usually allows for dealing with the property, which was inconsistent with the deed's restrictions.
  
  2. Eligibility for Relief under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act:
  Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act exempts one house or part of a house "belonging to the assessee exclusively used by him for residential purposes." The court needed to determine if the sons could claim this exemption. The Tribunal had ruled that the sons, though owners, could not claim the exemption as they had no right to reside in the house during their mother's lifetime. The court, however, found that the sons had a vested remainder interest in the property, which was heritable and alienable. The court concluded that the sons' interest in the property was not merely expectant but a present right, albeit subject to the mother's right of residence. Thus, the sons were deemed to have a legal right to reside in the house, fulfilling the conditions for exemption under section 5(1)(iv).
  
  3. Interpretation of "Exclusive Use" for Residential Purposes:
  The court analyzed whether the term "exclusive use" under section 5(1)(iv) implied that the sons must have an absolute right to exclude others from the house. The court noted that the deed described the sons and the mother as co-owners, indicating that the right of residence was not exclusive to Ranganayaki Ammal. The court emphasized that in a Hindu undivided family, the right of residence granted to a widowed lady does not exclude other family members from residing in the family house. Thus, the sons' residence in the house was not permissive but a legal right. The court also referenced previous judgments, including CWT v. K. Ramachandra Chettiar, which supported the interpretation that a life interest or a right of residence is an interest in property and qualifies for exemption under section 5(1)(iv).
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the sons were entitled to the relief under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. The court held that the interest granted to Ranganayaki Ammal was a right of residence, not a life interest, and that the sons, as vested remaindermen, had a legal right to reside in the house. The court answered the referred question in the negative, favoring the assessees, and granted costs to the assessees in both sets of tax cases.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 23
  
  Issues involved: Income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1977-78, interest under section 217(1)(a), penalty under section 273, obligation to furnish advance tax statement u/s 209A(1)(a).
  
  Income-tax Assessment: The petitioners' income-tax assessment for the year 1977-78 showed nil income. However, for the assessment year 1979-80, they declared their total income as Rs. 5,47,710 in a revised return. The assessment concluded with a total income of Rs. 5,54,010, with interest u/s 217(1)(a) charged and a penalty show-cause notice u/s 273 issued.
  
  Interest under Section 217(1)(a) and Penalty under Section 273: The petitioners challenged the assessment order charging interest u/s 217(1)(a) and a penalty notice u/s 273, arguing they were not liable as they had not sent the advance tax statement as their previous year's income was nil. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the obligation to furnish the advance tax statement u/s 209A(1)(a).
  
  Obligation to Furnish Advance Tax Statement u/s 209A(1)(a): The petitioners contended they were not obligated to send the advance tax statement as no advance tax was payable due to their nil income in the previous assessment year. The respondents argued that even if the computed amount was nil, the statement had to be submitted. The court interpreted that if no advance tax was payable, there was no obligation to send the statement, as the purpose was to inform the Income-tax Officer of the computation.
  
  Judgment: The court held that as no advance tax was payable, the petitioners were not required to submit the statement u/s 209A(1)(a), thus not liable for interest u/s 217(1)(a) or penalty u/s 273. The respondents were ordered to refund the interest amount of Rs. 50,722 deducted from the petitioners. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the specified amount to the petitioners along with the costs.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 22
  
  The High Court of Kerala held that current account balances of partners treated as capital, not exempted as undrawn profits under Wealth-tax Act. The judgment favored the Revenue against the assessee. Each party to bear respective costs.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 21
  
  Issues involved: Valuation of closing stock for a dissolved firm for income tax assessment.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court of Kerala addressed the issue of valuing the closing stock of a dissolved firm for income tax assessment. The case involved a firm that was dissolved, and two partners retired, withdrawing the closing stock valued at Rs. 94,390.75. The Income-tax Officer determined the value of the closing stock at Rs. 1,17,987 based on market price, resulting in a higher taxable income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this valuation method, following precedents from the Madras High Court.
  
  In the case of G. R. Ramachari & Co. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 142, the Madras High Court emphasized that upon dissolution of a partnership, the valuation of closing stock should be based on prevailing market price, not cost price. Similarly, in A. L. A. Firm v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 622, the Madras High Court reiterated that stock-in-trade must be valued at market price upon termination of business, contrary to the option available during the business's operation.
  
  The judgment highlighted the distinction between valuing assets for a continuing business and a dissolved firm. For dissolved firms, assets should be valued at market price, not book value, to determine the true worth. The court referenced Muhammed Ussain Sahib v. Abdul Gaffoor Sahib and other legal sources to support this principle. The Supreme Court's decision in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 further emphasized the importance of valuing assets accurately upon dissolution or retirement from a partnership.
  
  Despite the assessee's arguments citing previous cases of concessional transactions in continuing businesses, the court agreed with the Madras High Court's reasoning. It concluded that the closing stock of the dissolved firm should be valued at market rate, not based on the cost shown in the books. The judgment favored the Revenue over the assessee, directing each party to bear their respective costs in the case.
  
  Overall, the judgment clarified that for dissolved firms under section 189 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the income must be computed based on the market value of the closing stock, in contrast to the valuation options available to continuing businesses. The court's decision aligned with established legal principles and precedents, emphasizing the importance of accurate asset valuation for tax assessment purposes.

  ---

• 1985 (12) TMI 20
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Exemption of agricultural lands u/s 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
  2. Doctrine of merger concerning the order of the Wealth-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Exemption of Agricultural Lands u/s 5(1)(iva)
  The Tribunal referred the question of whether agricultural lands owned by a firm could be directly allocated to partners for claiming exemption u/s 5(1)(iva) in their individual assessments. The Tribunal held that agricultural lands belonged to the firm and not to the individual partners. Therefore, the exemption u/s 5(1)(iva) should be given effect to in the hands of the firm, not the individual partners. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the partners cannot claim exemption for agricultural lands owned by the firm, as these lands do not belong to them individually. The Court referenced several cases, including CWT v. Padampat Singhania [1973] 90 ITR 418 (All) and CWT v. Purushotham Pai [1978] 114 ITR 270 (Kar), supporting this interpretation. The question was answered in the negative, against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue.
  
  Issue 2: Doctrine of Merger
  The Tribunal also addressed whether the order of the Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) merged into the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) when the latter did not consider certain aspects of the case. The Tribunal held that the part of the WTO's order not appealed before the AAC did not merge into the AAC's order. Therefore, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was justified in taking action u/s 25(2) of the Act regarding that part of the order. The High Court agreed, citing State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 144 (SC) and Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel v. G. V. Shah [1975] 98 ITR 255 (Guj), which clarified that the doctrine of merger depends on the scope of the appeal and the specific issues considered. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue on both issues, denying the individual partners' claim for exemption u/s 5(1)(iva) and upholding the Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise the WTO's order on points not considered by the AAC.

  ---

1 ....67891011