|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 58 of 58 Records
-
1972 (11) TMI 19
Issues: Application for writ of certiorari to quash an order by the Central Government and direct it to dispose of a petition under the Estate Duty Act. Interpretation of Section 52 of the Estate Duty Act regarding the authority to consider and dispose of applications. Validity of the order issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on behalf of the Central Government. Whether the order is a speaking order and grounds for quashing it.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order by the Central Government and direct it to dispose of a petition under the Estate Duty Act. The petitioner, the widow and administrator of the deceased's property, had requested the Central Government to take over property to discharge the estate duty. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, on behalf of the Central Government, informed the petitioner of the rejection of her offer against the arrears of estate duty demand.
One contention raised was regarding the authority empowered to consider and dispose of such applications under Section 52 of the Estate Duty Act. The Central Government argued that it had exercised its discretion in rejecting the offer, even though the communication was made by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The court accepted this argument, stating that the decision was taken by the Central Government, and there was no need to quash the order based on the form of communication.
The second contention was that the order was not a speaking order and should be quashed on that basis. However, the court held that Section 52 confers discretion upon the Central Government, and the reasons for not accepting the property were provided in the counter. Therefore, the court found no grounds to quash the order solely on the basis of it not being a speaking order.
As no other contentions were raised, the court dismissed the writ petition with costs, emphasizing that the Central Government had indeed taken the decision, rendering the writ petition ineffective in this case. The judgment highlights the importance of understanding the authority responsible for decision-making under relevant statutes and the discretion conferred upon such authorities in making determinations.
-
1972 (11) TMI 18
Best Judgment Assessment - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that no notice under section 142(1) was necessary to complete the assessment tinder section 144 ? " It is relevant to state that it is not the argument of Sri Albal that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 144 are not alternative conditions, but cumulative. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in the view it has taken that notice under section 142(1) of the Act was discretionary and the non-issue of a notice under the said sub-section does not render the Income-tax Officer incompetent to make an order under section 144 of the Act.
-
1972 (11) TMI 17
Delay in filing of returns of the income - levy of interest – justification - It is conceded that the interest demanded is not arbitrary and was payable. The Income-tax Officer appears to have made a mistake on the earlier occasion which he has rectified after the appellate order. As it appears consequent upon the appellate decision the interest has been worked out. All the writ applications are accordingly dismissed
-
1972 (11) TMI 16
Whether best judgment assessment under section 144 can be made when notice under section 148 has been issued? - When assessment is made under section 144, whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the materials gathered by the Income-tax Officer – appeal is dismissed
-
1972 (11) TMI 15
Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - In these writ petitions the petitioners seek to quash the assessment orders made against them by the concerned Wealth-tax Officer - Whether the provision granting higher exemption limit for persons owning agricultural lands are discriminatory in nature – held that it is not discriminatory
-
1972 (11) TMI 14
Issues:
Assessment under Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 for six individuals for the year 1967-68, Appeal before Appellate Assistant Commissioner challenging best judgment assessment, Tribunal's adjudication on a question not raised in the grounds of appeal.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment of six individuals under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 for the year 1967-68. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention that the yield per acre should not be uniform and varied based on the maturity of the cardamom plants. However, the Tribunal, without a specific ground in the memorandum of appeal, decided to set aside the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order and fix the yield at 65 kgs. per acre for the entire estate. The assessees objected to this decision, leading to a reference being made under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950.
The key issue in the judgment revolves around whether the Tribunal had the authority to adjudicate on a question not raised in the grounds of appeal. The Court highlighted the absence of a provision in the Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1951 or the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1965 mandating the specification of grounds of appeal. However, it emphasized the general procedural norm that appellate bodies should only consider grounds specified in the appeal memorandum. The Court discussed the importance of seeking leave to raise additional grounds and the discretion involved in granting such leave, as seen in other legal provisions. In this case, the Court found that the Tribunal's decision to address an issue not raised in the grounds of appeal without seeking or granting leave was procedurally unjustifiable and violated the principles of natural justice.
Consequently, the Court answered the question referred to it in the negative, favoring the assessee and ruling against the department. The judgment underscores the importance of adherence to procedural norms, including the specification of grounds of appeal and the requirement for seeking leave to introduce additional grounds during appellate proceedings. A copy of the judgment will be forwarded to the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, as per the Court's directive.
-
1972 (11) TMI 13
Whether the court can go into adequacy of the reasons - Whether search and seizure warrant can be issued against another Government department in respect of the amount seized under another law - whether the order under s 132(5) section passed without giving the assessee an opportunity to take copies of seized documents would be valid
-
1972 (11) TMI 12
Petitioner's late husband, one T. M. Abdul Rahim, was in arrears of income-tax, interest thereon and penalty aggregating to Rs. 4,37,868.29. For recovering the said amount, recovery proceedings were initiated by the income-tax department. A certificate was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the Tax Recovery Officer under section 222 - When the defaulter dies, whether attachment and sale without demand notice on legal representative is valid
-
1972 (11) TMI 11
Addition of cost of undisclosed sale of grains - Tribunal allowed for shortage due to storage in accordance with the notification of the co-operative department. Whether a question of law arises from this decision - This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on behalf of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, praying that the Appellate Tribunal be directed to state the case and refer a question of law arising therefrom – held that no question of law arises
-
1972 (11) TMI 10
One member of the family gets divided and there are no other coparceners - whether the separated member can constitute a joint family by himself - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's status was correctly taken as that of an 'individual'? - In the present case, the assessee does not have any other person, male or female, as a member of his family. As a sole coparcener, he cannot, in law, be deemed to constitute a Hindu undivided family. He was rightly assessed in the status of an individual - Question answered in the affirmative
-
1972 (11) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal for computing the gross profit in the manner it did.
2. Applicability of the proviso to section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
3. Validity of the assessment methods and conclusions drawn by the Income-tax authorities.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Evidence for Computing Gross Profit:
The primary issue was whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal for computing the gross profit in the manner it did. The court observed that the term "evidence" should be understood broadly as "material" rather than strictly under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Tribunal had some material before itself, including previous orders of assessment, which could form the basis of its conclusions. The court emphasized that insufficiency of material or a wrong conclusion on facts does not entitle interference unless there is no evidence at all. The Tribunal's reliance on the previous year's margin of profit (17%) was deemed appropriate, as it constituted good material or evidence for computing the gross profit for the assessment year 1957-58.
2. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 13:
The court examined whether the proviso to section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was applicable. The proviso allows the Income-tax Officer to adopt any basis for computation if the assessee does not follow a regular method of accounting or if the method employed does not allow proper deduction of income, profits, and gains. The court noted that the income-tax authorities unanimously agreed that the proviso was attracted in this case. The Tribunal's application of the proviso to section 13 was justified as the assessee's method of accounting did not provide a clear picture of the income, necessitating a best judgment assessment.
3. Validity of Assessment Methods and Conclusions:
The court reviewed the assessment methods and conclusions drawn by the Income-tax authorities. The Income-tax Officer initially estimated the sales and applied a higher margin of profit due to discrepancies in the assessee's records. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner adjusted the figures and provided some relief to the assessee. The Tribunal further reduced the margin of profit from 19% to 17%, considering the previous year's margin and the increase in overhead costs. The court found that the Tribunal's approach was consistent with established principles, as previous assessments can provide a valid basis for current assessments. The court referred to authoritative texts and judicial precedents, including views from Kanga's "The Law and Practice of Income-tax" and cases like Gopinath Naik v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga, to support this stance.
The court also addressed the petitioner's argument that the 2% overhead costs should reduce the margin from 17% to 15%. However, it concluded that the Tribunal's decision to maintain the 17% margin, considering larger sales and overhead costs, was not erroneous. The court underscored that the Tribunal had good material before it, including previous assessments, to justify its conclusions.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was not only evidence but good evidence before the Tribunal for computing the gross profits in the manner it did. The reference was answered affirmatively, and the matter was returned to the Tribunal. No order as to costs was made, acknowledging the debatable nature of the issue.
-
1972 (11) TMI 8
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that section 5(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, applied to the gift under consideration and that the gift was liable to tax under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ? "
-
1972 (11) TMI 7
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - assessee in this case is a Hindu undivided fammily and it was one of the three partners of a firm - Whether re-distribution of profit-sharing ratio among partner attract gift-tax provisions and whether the value of gift is to be calculated on the goodwill or on the entire assets
-
1972 (11) TMI 6
" 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the initial depreciation of Rs. 1,01,814 was not to be deducted for the purpose of computing the written down value for computing the profits under section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in applying the provisions contained in sec tion 10(5)(b) instead of section 10(5)(c) ? "
-
1972 (11) TMI 5
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profits on the sale of cooly lines situated on agricultural lands are liable to be charged to income-tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act ? Does the exemption of 'agricultural land' from the definition of capital assets in section 2(14)(iii) take in buildings situated on agricultural land in view of the maxim that 'whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of it ?"
-
1972 (11) TMI 4
Delay in filing return - levy of interest and penalty - petitioner challenges the orders of the Income-tax Officer, levying penalty under section 271(1) – held that provision for levy of penalty as well as interest for delayed filing of return cannot be said to be offending any constitutional provision
-
1972 (11) TMI 3
Voluntary Liquidation - High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that Rs. 31,26,000, mentioned in the question referred to the High Court, is a " debt " due from the assessee-company - Tribunal is not right in holding that the claim of the assessee for the deduction of Rs. 31,26,000 was rightly rejected as coming under s. 2(m)(ii)
-
1972 (11) TMI 2
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Consideration of records from previous assessment years (1955-56 to 1959-60) for the assessment year 1960-61.
3. Validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 33B after the repeal of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33B:
The Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61, questioning the validity of the initial capital, sale of ornaments, income from business, and investments. The Commissioner found the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, citing lack of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer and insufficient enquiry into the assessee's claims. The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Commissioner could not rely on previous years' assessments (1955-56 to 1959-60) to conclude that the 1960-61 assessment was erroneous. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 33B, emphasizing that the Commissioner could cancel an erroneous assessment even if the income was voluntarily returned by the assessee. The Court cited Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, supporting the view that the Commissioner has ample jurisdiction to cancel an assessment if it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
2. Consideration of records from previous assessment years (1955-56 to 1959-60) for the assessment year 1960-61:
The Tribunal had held that the Commissioner could not consider the records of previous assessment years (1955-56 to 1959-60) while assessing the year 1960-61. The High Court, however, did not pronounce an opinion on whether the Commissioner could consider materials from previous years, focusing instead on the jurisdictional issue. The Supreme Court supported the High Court's view that the assessment order for 1960-61 was erroneous due to the Income-tax Officer's lack of jurisdiction, which was sufficient grounds for the Commissioner to set aside the assessment.
3. Validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 33B after the repeal of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
A third question was whether the Commissioner could lawfully initiate proceedings under section 33B on June 25, 1963, after the repeal of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court declined to answer this question as it was not pressed by the assessee. The Supreme Court did not address this issue further, focusing on the jurisdictional and procedural aspects of the case.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 33B to cancel the assessment for the year 1960-61, finding the Income-tax Officer's assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the Commissioner had sufficient grounds to set aside the assessment due to jurisdictional errors and lack of proper enquiry by the Income-tax Officer. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
9911796707
