|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 85 Records
-
1972 (10) TMI 25
Madras Agricultural Income Tax Rules - The assessee in this case is a public limited company owning a tea estate in Valparai Hills. - When the Central Income-tax Officer apportions head office expenses between tea and cardamom cultivation and the agricultural income-tax officer gives a finding that cardamom cultivation is practically given up whether the proportionate expenditure can be disallowed
-
1972 (10) TMI 24
" 1. Whether, on the facts of the case, there was a 'loan or advance of Rs. 2,55,135 within the meaning of section 12(1B) read with section 2(6A)(e) by the company to the shareholder ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the phrase 'accumulated profits', as used in section 2(6A)(e) means such profits as disclosed by the company's balance-sheet or such disclosed profits subject to adjustments as required by the Income-tax Act ? "
-
1972 (10) TMI 23
This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceedings for recovery of tax taken against the partnership firm - effect of the letter of the Tax Recovery Officer apportioning the tax payable by the firm among the partners
-
1972 (10) TMI 22
" Whether the hiring by M/s. Pure Products and Madhu Canning Ltd. to the assessee-company of a godown belonging to and used by the former for its business purposes amounted to 'transfer' to the latter within the meaning of the phrase 'the transfer to a new business of building previously used in any other business ' occurring in section 15C(2)(i) ? "
-
1972 (10) TMI 21
Issues:
Assessment of deduction claimed for gratuity payments under section 5(e) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act for multiple assessment years.
Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the issue of whether the deduction claimed for gratuity payments by the assessee was allowable under section 5(e) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer initially allowed the deduction but later disallowed it, stating that the payments had no nexus with the future conduct of the business. The appellate authority upheld this disallowance, leading to an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the payments were not ex gratia but made in pursuance of a consistent practice followed by the assessee since 1949. The Tribunal held that the claim for gratuity under section 5(e) should be upheld based on the established practice of the assessee.
The judgment referenced the Supreme Court case of Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax to establish the principle that for an expenditure to be deductible under section 5(e), there must be a sufficient nexus between the expenditure and the business operations. The court highlighted that payments made as part of a general practice affecting the quantum of salary or made for commercial expediency could be considered allowable deductions. The court emphasized that if payments were made in pursuance of a general practice, they could be inferred as an inducement for employees to remain in service until retirement, facilitating uninterrupted business operations.
The judgment distinguished the case at hand from the decision of the Kerala High Court in Teekoy Rubbers (India) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, where gratuity payments were disallowed due to the lack of nexus between the payments and the future conduct of the business. In contrast, the Tribunal in the present case found that the gratuity payments were made in pursuance of a general practice adopted by the company for all retired employees, establishing an expectation among employees to receive gratuity. The court concluded that the established practice of paying gratuity had a sufficient nexus with the future conduct of the business, making the deduction claim allowable under section 5(e) of the Act.
In conclusion, the court upheld the view of the Tribunal, dismissing the petitions and making no order as to costs. The judgment clarified the principles governing the deductibility of gratuity payments under section 5(e) and emphasized the importance of establishing a nexus between such payments and the future conduct of the business to claim deductions successfully.
-
1972 (10) TMI 20
Assessee obtained lease of premises for starting hotel business but the premises were required by the Government of India. Due to this the assessee was not able to commence business - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the compensation received on account of this is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee - assessee was completely prevented from commencing his business of a hotel as a result of the two requisition orders - He never carried on that business until he commenced the same in April, 1947. That he received compensation amounts in September and November, 1947, and March, 1948, does not make any difference to the findings made above - In the result, our answer to the question is in the negative
-
1972 (10) TMI 19
Seizure of money by police - whether income-tax officer can seize the same when no cognisable offence made out - if cognisable offence is not made out by the police the person from whom it was seized is the person who is entitled to the seized money. But if the income-tax officer is entitled to seize the amount then he would be the person entitled to it - resulting position is that the Magistrate was wrong in holding that the Customs Officer and the Gold Control Officer are entitled to the possession of the transistor and the jewels in question. I set aside the order of the court below in this respect and direct that the transistor and all the gold articles, other than the primary gold, seized from the petitioners be returned to them. As I have already observed, the order of the lower court regarding the delivery of cash to the income-tax department will stand confirmed
-
1972 (10) TMI 18
The question that arises for consideration in this criminal revision is, who is entitled under section 523, Criminal Procedure Code, to the amount of cash seized from one Mohammed Koya on January 29, 1970 ? – contentin is that Income-tax Officer has no power to seize the amount in court deposit, because he has not found the money as a result of such search as has been contemplated under section 132 of the Income-tax Act - resulting position is that the order of the court below directing refund of the entire amount in court deposit to the V-Income-tax Officer, Madras, is correct, and is hereby upheld. The criminal revision case of Mohammed Kunhi is dismissed.
-
1972 (10) TMI 17
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the activity carried on by the assessee in preparing articles of food from raw materials, constitutes 'manufacture or processing of goods' within the meaning of section 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act, 1968, and that the assessee is an 'Industrial company' within the meaning of the definition contained in that section
-
1972 (10) TMI 16
This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the revenue. The question that is referred to us for determination is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessments for the years 1955-56, 1957-58 and 1958-59 under section 34(1)(b) of the Act?
-
1972 (10) TMI 15
During the year the assessee-company had an income of Rs. 7,318 in the outstanding creditors' account and this amount was on account of expenses claimed in earlier years. The assessee-company had maintained its accounts on mercantile basis, and even though the amount in fact was not paid, yet as the liability was incurred, it was allowed as expenses incurred in the earlier years. In the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1961-62, the amount was outstanding in the outstanding creditors' account - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 7,318 could be included in the income of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1961-62, under the provisions of section 10(2A) or section 12(5)?"
-
1972 (10) TMI 14
Income-tax Officer passed an assessment order under section 144 in default, estimating the business income of the assessee and treating the assessee as an unregistered firm. Coming to know of this order, the assessee made an application under section 146 for the cancellation of the assessment order and for passing orders afresh, but this application was rejected - When the assessee files the declaration without filing the return of income and assessment is made ex parte whether the assessee-firm is entitled to registration
-
1972 (10) TMI 13
Issues:
Determination of whether sums of Rs. 4,38,472 and Rs. 2,27,342 were properly held to be capital profits.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54. The assessee, a private limited company, was involved in the import and sale of diesel engines. The company presented a scheme to the Government of India in 1947 for manufacturing diesel engines in India with machinery from a financially troubled American company. The project involved significant remittances to America and the establishment of a new company in India. However, the project was abandoned in 1949 due to unsuitability of the engines for Indian conditions. Subsequent remittances led to surplus realizations of Rs. 4,38,472 and Rs. 2,27,342 in the relevant years, which were initially taxed by the Income-tax Officer.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Tribunal later held that the profits from the liquidation of investments and remittances were capital gains and not taxable. The revenue contended that the transaction was a trading activity, emphasizing the low value of fixed assets of the American company and the loan given by the assessee-company. However, the Tribunal found the transaction to be of a capital nature, as the purchase of shares did not constitute trading activity, and the profits from liquidation were capital gains.
The Tribunal concluded that the remittances were not revenue income, even after selling shares, as the amounts repaid were less than the principal. The revenue did not argue that the sums were related to the sale of stock-in-trade. The composite nature of the transaction, aimed at establishing a diesel engine manufacturing company, was deemed capital in nature. Therefore, any gains resulting from the project's abandonment were considered capital gains, not revenue income.
In summary, the court affirmed that the sums of Rs. 4,38,472 and Rs. 2,27,342 were properly held to be capital profits, and the revenue was directed to pay the costs of the assessee-company.
-
1972 (10) TMI 12
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - petitioner is the widow - Whether inclusion of lineal descendants' share in the property passing on the death of coparcener of Mitakshara family is beyond the charging section of Estate Duty Act - whether it violates equality clause and whether it is unconstitutional in respect of article 14 of the Constitution
-
1972 (10) TMI 11
Whether proceedings under section 34 for the assessment year 1956-57 were validly initiated against the assessee, Hindu undivided family, and the assessment completed against it within the time-limit applicable to it - This is not a case where no return has been filed by the assessee or that his income has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the proceedings under section 34 were invalid
-
1972 (10) TMI 10
By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the question that is referred for our determination is : "Whether, on the facts of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Wholesale Cloth Dealers' Importers' Group did not form a partnership ?"
-
1972 (10) TMI 9
Whether the ship can be said to have been used by the assessee for the purposes of its business at any time during the previous year 1956 - Held, no - purchaser committed default in carrying out its obligations under the contract, the repairs so carried out may be useful to the assessee-company while the ship was being used by it for its business. There is no evidence whatever in the present case to indicate that if in case the purchaser committed default in carrying out. his obligations under the contract, the assessee would have used the ship for its business. It may well enter into another contract for its sale. Even during the period between June 15, 1956, and June 23, 1956, when actually delivery was given, it cannot be regarded that the ship was used passively for the purpose of its business
-
1972 (10) TMI 8
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case unabsorbed depreciation allowance of the previous years deemed to be part of depreciation allowance of the current year under proviso (b) to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act can be set off against income under other heads? - it is clear that the assessee was entitled to claim a set-off in respect of the unabsorbed part of depreciation of Rs. 6,98,190 against income from interest on securities and capital gains. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative
-
1972 (10) TMI 7
Computation of capital gains when an assessee has sold the bonus shares allotted to him - Whether, for the purposes of computation of capital gains, was the assessee entitled to deduct the face value of the bonus shares from their sale value as the 'actual cost' of those shares to the assessee within the meaning of section 12B(2) - correct method of valuing the cost to a person of the bonus shares is to take the cost of the original shares, spread it over the original shares and the bonus shares collectively and find out the average price of all the shares - instead of being a dealer in shares, the same principle will apply if the assessee is an investor in shares. Even in case of an assessee, who was an investor in shares, the capital gain of bonus shares has to be calculated in accordance with the method of valuation laid down by the Supreme Court in Gold Mohore Investment Co. Ltd.'s case
-
1972 (10) TMI 6
Whether Tribunal is right in its view that the CIT had jurisdiction to revise the order of refund - Whether Tribunal is right in its view that the order of refund under s. 48 read with s. 49D is independent and distinct from the assessment order - Whether Tribunal is right in confirming the computation of relief as modified by the Commissioner- Whether Tribunal is right in modifying the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner - Whether Tribunal is right in its interpretation of s. 49D
|
9911796707
