|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 88 Records
-
1970 (11) TMI 28
Income accruing in Indian States - method of calculation of super-tax - whether the method of computation adopted by the Tribunal is correct or the one adopted by the assessee is correct - held that effect of section 17(3) is to be given after proportionately increasing the super-tax under section 17(4)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922
-
1970 (11) TMI 27
Issues:
1. Whether the assets of the Hindu undivided family could be deemed to have been partitioned on specific dates.
2. Whether the income from the business set up by individual family members using family funds could be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, involving the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58, and 1958-59 of a Hindu undivided family. The family claimed partition in 1948, dividing assets within and outside the books, with a partnership firm taking over the business assets. However, the Income-tax Officer deemed the partition as a sham transaction, leading to assessments based on the assets being considered joint family property. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal.
The Appellate Tribunal referred two questions to the High Court. The first question concerned the partition of assets besides specific items already divided among family members. The Tribunal noted that while shares were ascertained, individual items were not physically divided in 1948, leading to a negative answer against the assessee on this issue. The second question related to income from businesses set up by family members post-1948 using family funds. The High Court observed that assets were eventually divided among family members, ceasing to be joint family property. Therefore, income from businesses set up by individual members could not be assessed as belonging to the Hindu undivided family, resulting in a negative answer in favor of the assessee on this issue.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled against the assessee on the first question regarding the partition of assets and in favor of the assessee on the second question concerning the assessment of income from individual family member businesses. The judgment clarified the distinction between joint family assets and individual member assets, ultimately determining the tax liability of the Hindu undivided family.
-
1970 (11) TMI 26
Revenue challenging the maintainability of this application on the ground that no reference application under section 66 was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal - revenue's contention that this application by the assessee under section 66(2) of the Act without preferring an application under section 66(1) and obtaining a refusal thereon, is not maintainable, is acceptable
-
1970 (11) TMI 25
Issues:
1. Allowability of loss arising from the confiscation of currency notes under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the confiscation of currency notes from the assessee, who was apprehended on the border while allegedly smuggling gold. The Income-tax Officer questioned the source of the seized amount, leading to a discrepancy in the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the origin of the funds. The department contended that the confiscated amount represented the assessee's income from smuggling activities. The Appellate Tribunal determined that the entire sum belonged to the assessee and that only a portion of it constituted income from the previous year. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim that the confiscated amount was a loss incurred in the smuggling business, thus eligible for deduction under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Regarding the revenue's argument based on a Bombay High Court decision, the Court distinguished the present case from the cited case, emphasizing that the confiscated amount was intended for acquiring gold in Pakistan, not for releasing already acquired goods. The Court reiterated that the assessee was engaged in smuggling and the confiscated amount was part of that illegal business, making it a permissible deduction. Citing a Gujarat High Court decision, the Court affirmed that profits or losses from illegal businesses are assessable under the Income-tax Act, rejecting the revenue's argument that losses from illegal activities should not be considered for tax purposes.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee. The judgment emphasized that losses from illegal businesses are eligible for consideration in computing business income, aligning with the principle that illegal business activities fall within the purview of the Income-tax Act. The Court found no basis to differentiate between profits and losses arising from illegal activities, affirming that losses from such activities are admissible for tax assessment purposes.
Therefore, the Court answered the referred question affirmatively, supporting the assessee's claim for deduction of the confiscated amount as a loss under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act.
-
1970 (11) TMI 24
Amount given as fees to advocate for conducting writ petition - held that such expenditure is allowable expenditure as it was incurred wholly for business - further amount spend for replacement of petrol engines by diesel engines in buses is also held as revenue expenditure
-
1970 (11) TMI 23
Draft of the statement of case indicating questions to be referred, placed before parties for their suggestion, by tribunal - held that it does not amount to final decision on question to be referred - whether application can be made to High Court to direct reference of further questions before reference is filed in court - No
-
1970 (11) TMI 22
Issues:
Assessment of tax on an individual, appeal process in tax matters, validity of writ petition, delay in filing petition, review of judgment, grounds for review, impleading parties in a petition, rejection of reference application.
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad involved the respondent, who was assessed to tax as a Hindu undivided family for the year 1944-45. Subsequently, two other individuals were also assessed on a portion of the same income. The respondent filed appeals against the assessment, which were dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal then modified the assessment order. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the sale of his house for tax recovery, which was initially dismissed but later reviewed and allowed by a single judge. The appeal by the Income-tax Officer questioned the validity of the writ petition and the procedural irregularities in the court's proceedings.
The court highlighted the importance of procedural adherence in adjudication and noted that the writ petition did not seek to quash the assessment orders but challenged the tax recovery process. The court criticized the delay of over six years in filing the writ petition and questioned the grounds for review. The respondent's lack of awareness or action regarding the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order was also scrutinized, as the Tribunal was not initially impleaded in the petition.
The judgment emphasized that a review under article 226 should be based on valid grounds, which were found lacking in this case. The court rejected the notion of reviewing an order based on the rejection of a reference application. The respondent's failure to implead relevant parties and submit necessary documents along with the initial writ petition was also considered a procedural flaw.
Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the single judge's order, and dismissed the writ petition with costs. The judgment highlighted the need for strict adherence to procedural rules and the importance of timely and accurate legal actions in tax matters to ensure fair and efficient resolution of disputes.
-
1970 (11) TMI 21
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount of Rs. 1,06,834 could legally be allowed as a bad debt.
2. Whether the debt due to the Bihar Agents Private Ltd. from the Bihar Glass Factory was a debt made in the ordinary course of money-lending business.
3. Whether the entire sum of Rs. 2,46,510 due to the assessee from Bihar Agents Private Ltd. was in respect of loans advanced in the ordinary course of money-lending business.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the amount of Rs. 1,06,834 could legally be allowed as a bad debt:
The assessee, an individual engaged in cloth business and money-lending, had dealings with M/s. Bihar Agents Private Ltd. and Bihar Glass Factory. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the bad debt claim, stating it was not a trade debt or a loan in the course of money-lending business. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee was indeed carrying on money-lending business and that the advances made to Bihar Agents Private Ltd. were part of this business. The Tribunal concluded that the book debt of Rs. 2,25,000 taken over by the assessee was part of his money-lending assets, and the bad debt arose in the course of money-lending business. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim to the extent of Rs. 1,06,834.
2. Whether the debt due to the Bihar Agents Private Ltd. from the Bihar Glass Factory was a debt made in the ordinary course of money-lending business:
The High Court directed the Tribunal to clarify whether the advances were made in the ordinary course of money-lending business. The Tribunal, in its supplementary statement, confirmed that the entire sum of Rs. 2,48,119 due to the assessee represented money-lending advances. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the loan was advanced in the ordinary course of money-lending business, as evidenced by the assessee's money-lending license and the interest received over several years, including from Bihar Agents Private Ltd.
3. Whether the entire sum of Rs. 2,46,510 due to the assessee from Bihar Agents Private Ltd. was in respect of loans advanced in the ordinary course of money-lending business:
The Tribunal's supplementary statement clarified that the entire sum of Rs. 2,48,119 due to the assessee was money-lending advances. The Tribunal found that no part of this amount was attributable to advances other than in the ordinary course of money-lending business. The High Court agreed with this conclusion, stating that the Tribunal's findings were clear and that the advances were made in the ordinary course of money-lending business.
Additional Points Raised by the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the supplementary statement did not comply with the High Court's directions, as it did not explicitly state whether the advances were in the ordinary course of money-lending business. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal's findings, when read in context, clearly indicated that the advances were made in the ordinary course of money-lending business.
The petitioner also contended that the assessee's failure to credit interest on the book debt indicated that the transaction was not in the ordinary course of money-lending business. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the omission of interest credit did not affect the system of accounting or the nature of the transaction.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's findings were correct and that the amount of Rs. 1,06,834 was rightly allowed as a bad debt under section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and the petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1970 (11) TMI 20
Company claimed deduction under section 10(2)(v)of the amount expended on replacement of worn out cotton bowls in calendering machines - claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that this expenditure was not for "current repairs" - held that replacement of cotton bowls is covered by the expression "current repairs"
-
1970 (11) TMI 19
Issues:
1. Determination of whether managing agency remuneration was the individual income of B. N. Bhaskar or the income of the Hindu undivided family.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the nature of managing agency remuneration received by B. N. Bhaskar, the karta of a Hindu undivided family. The key question was whether the remuneration should be assessed as the individual income of B. N. Bhaskar or as the income of the Hindu undivided family. The case involved the history of a managing agency business run by M/s. Bhaskar Brothers, initially formed with multiple partners but later solely owned by B. N. Bhaskar. The Tribunal had to determine the character of the remuneration received by the managing agency concern during the relevant accounting year.
The first contention raised by the revenue was that the managing agency firm was an asset of the Hindu undivided family due to its formation when the concerns belonged to the family. However, the court noted that the partnership deed and past assessments were not available to establish this claim. The court found no evidence to support that the managing agency firm was an asset of the Hindu undivided family, especially considering one of the partners was a stranger.
The second contention was that the appointment of M/s. Bhaskar Brothers as managing agents was linked to the family's investment in the company. The court refuted this argument, highlighting the insignificant investment made by the family in the company and the lack of a direct connection between the investment and the appointment. The court emphasized that the appointment could have been due to the partners' experience in the business rather than the family's investment.
The final contention was regarding the nature of remuneration received by managing agency firms compared to directors or managing partners. The court clarified that the determination of individual income versus family income depends on the tests laid down by the Supreme Court. Applying these tests, the court held that the managing agency remuneration was the individual income of B. N. Bhaskar and not the income of the Hindu undivided family. The judgment aligned with the principle that income earned as compensation for services rendered by an individual should be assessed as the individual's income.
In conclusion, the court answered the reference in favor of the assessee, ruling that the managing agency remuneration was the individual income of B. N. Bhaskar. The judgment provided a detailed analysis based on legal principles and factual circumstances, ultimately clarifying the nature of the income in question and resolving the issue raised in the reference.
-
1970 (11) TMI 18
Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 - liability of the assessee for the expenditure-tax - ssessee is a Hindu undivided family - smaller Hindu undivided families came into existence on partition of bigger HUF - whether expenditure incurred by the smaller HUF are liable to be included in the taxable expenditure of the bigger HUF
-
1970 (11) TMI 17
Whether the order in appeals against the order of assessment can be revised by the Tribunal - earlier order of the Tribunal in appeal against order u/s 23(4) was merely consequential, no decision on merits - on the appellate order u/s 27 being reversed the order in appeal against the order for assessment must also be revised - question is answered in affirmitive
-
1970 (11) TMI 16
Goods seized by Custom authorities - income-tax authorities in served a warrant of authorisation under section 132 - held that there cannot be an order under section 132 in respect of the goods or papers which were in the custody of a department of the Government under a legal authority i.e., the Customs authorities
-
1970 (11) TMI 15
Assesee, a dealer in motor trucks has a factory for repairing and servicing trucks sold by it - claim for depreciation on the site where building is erected - held that depreciation is not allowable on cost of land but it is allowable only on the cost of superstructure
-
1970 (11) TMI 14
Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order under appropriate provision of law.
2. Validity of penalty proceedings and order.
Analysis:
The High Court was tasked with determining the legality of an assessment order and penalty proceedings referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessment year in question was 1961-62, with the assessee initially declaring an income of Rs. 63,576, later revised to Rs. 71,137. The Income-tax Officer assessed under section 143(3) of the 1961 Act instead of section 23(3) of the 1922 Act, as required by section 297(2)(a) of the 1961 Act. The Tribunal set aside the assessment as not made under the appropriate provision of law. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 31,000 was imposed for concealed income of Rs. 37,025, which the Tribunal also canceled due to the void assessment order.
The petitioner contended that the assessment order should have been considered under section 23(3) of the 1922 Act, not void under section 143(3) of the 1961 Act. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, it was argued that an order should be valid under a jurisdiction conferring validity, not void under a different provision. Precedents from the Madras High Court were referenced to support this argument, emphasizing that jurisdiction does not depend on the provision quoted but on the Tribunal's actual powers. The High Court concurred with this reasoning, holding that the assessment order under section 143(3) of the 1961 Act should be deemed under section 23(3) of the 1922 Act, as both provisions address assessment, albeit with slight language differences.
In conclusion, the High Court found the Tribunal's decision erroneous in law and answered both referred questions in the negative, favoring the revenue and against the assessee. The Court's decision was based on the alignment of provisions in both Acts and the principle that a valid order should not be invalidated solely due to a misquoted provision. The judgment emphasized the substance of the power exercised over the technicality of the provision cited, ultimately upholding the validity of the assessment order and rejecting the cancellation of the penalty.
-
1970 (11) TMI 13
Issues:
1. Whether the disputed property is separate property of the defaulter or joint Hindu family property.
2. Whether the proceedings were conducted under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Validity of the objection filed by the petitioner in the attachment and sale proceedings.
4. Applicability of rule 9 and rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961.
5. Entitlement of the petitioner to relief under article 226 due to the omission to investigate the objection.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case is whether the disputed property is the separate property of the defaulter or the joint Hindu family property. The petitioner, son of the defaulter, claimed that the property was joint family property, while the respondent contended it was the defaulter's separate property. The court noted that determining the nature of the property was a question of fact that could not be resolved summarily.
2. Another issue raised was regarding the proceedings under which the attachment and sale were conducted. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, while the respondents claimed they were under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court compared the procedures under both acts and found little difference, emphasizing that the objection process was followed in the present case.
3. The validity of the objection filed by the petitioner during the attachment and sale proceedings was also questioned. The court observed that although the petitioner raised an objection, no definite order was passed before the sale, indicating an irregularity in the procedure. Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act mandates investigating objections before proceeding with the sale.
4. The applicability of rule 9 and rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act was discussed. Rule 9 bars jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes between the Income-tax Officer and the defaulter or their representatives. However, the court clarified that the petitioner, not being a defaulter or representative, could establish his title before a civil court as per rule 11(6).
5. The petitioner sought relief under article 226 due to the omission to investigate the objection, citing a previous case. The court considered the peculiar circumstances, noting the son's obligation to pay off the father's debts under Hindu law. Ultimately, the court declined to interfere, stating that the petitioner could establish his claim in a civil court, and since there was an alternative remedy available, relief under article 226 was not granted.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the parties would bear their own costs, and the stay order was vacated.
-
1970 (11) TMI 12
Issues:
Challenge to the order of rectification under the Income-tax Act, 1922 and subsequent revision application under section 33A(2) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition challenging the rectification order dated 24th March, 1966, made by the 1st respondent under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding the assessment year 1957-58. The petitioners, heirs of the original petitioner, contested the rectification order on multiple grounds. Firstly, they argued that the rebate given to an assessee in respect of tax paid by a registered firm cannot be considered unearned income in the hands of the partner under section 14(2)(aa) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Secondly, they contended that the notice for rectification was issued under the new Act (Income-tax Act, 1961), but the order was passed under the old Act (Income-tax Act, 1922), raising procedural concerns. Thirdly, they asserted that since no tax was payable on the partner's share of tax paid by the firm, no special surcharge could be levied, as surcharge is an addition to tax, and the amount on which no tax is payable cannot be termed as income. Lastly, they argued that the alleged mistake sought to be rectified was not apparent on the face of the record, as required under section 154 of the 1961 Act or section 35 of the 1922 Act.
The respondents justified the rectification based on the definition of earned income in section 2(6AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. They argued that any income exempt from tax under section 14(2) is deemed unearned income, justifying the surcharge. The court noted the lack of clear precedent supporting either party's interpretation and acknowledged the technical possibility of treating the income as unearned. However, it emphasized the arguable nature of the issue and cited authorities to highlight that rectification under section 35 requires errors to be glaringly apparent from the record, not open to debate or requiring fresh investigation.
The court referred to relevant case law, including National Rayon Corporation Ltd. v. G. R. Bahmani and Volkart Bros. v. Income-tax Officer, to emphasize that rectification can only be made for mistakes glaringly evident from the record, not those open to interpretation or debate. It concluded that the failure to apply a section of the Income-tax Act, subject to argument and not clearly evident, does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the rectification order was deemed illegal and without jurisdiction. The court held in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the debatable nature of the issue and the lack of clear error evident from the record, making the rectification under section 35 unjustified.
In conclusion, the court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioners, with each party bearing their own costs. The judgment underscores the requirement for errors to be glaringly apparent from the record for rectification under section 35, emphasizing the need for clarity and lack of debate in rectification proceedings.
-
1970 (11) TMI 11
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 31,069, representing the balance in the drawing account of the wife and children of the deceased, inclusive of profits, should be included in the value of the estate of Kader Ooran for estate duty purposes.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Inclusion of Rs. 31,069 in the Estate:
The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 31,069, which represented the balance in the drawing account of the wife and children of the deceased, inclusive of profits, should be included in the value of the estate for estate duty purposes. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty included this amount in the estate, but the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty excluded it. The Appellate Tribunal reversed the Appellate Controller's decision, restoring the inclusion by the Assistant Controller.
2. Gift and Partnership Formation:
On 31st March 1960, Kader Ooran gifted Rs. 40,000 worth of stock-in-trade, cash, and cheques to his wife and children, forming a partnership with them the next day. The minor son was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Upon Kader Ooran's death on 14th March 1961, the balance-sheet showed a profit of Rs. 31,069 for the year, which was attributed to the wife and children.
3. Legal Provisions and Interpretation:
Section 9(1) of the Estate Duty Act states that property taken under a disposition made by the deceased within two years of death should be deemed to pass on the death. Section 34(4) includes all income accrued upon the property down to and outstanding at the date of death. The court examined whether the profit derived from the partnership should be considered part of the estate.
4. English Authorities and Precedents:
The counsel for the accountable person cited the English case Sneddon v. Lord Advocate, which suggested that if cash is gifted and invested by the donee, the profit from such investment should not be included in the estate. The court also considered other English cases and legal texts, including Dymond's Death Duties and Halsbury's Laws of England, which discussed the treatment of income accrued from gifted property.
5. Indian Case Law:
The court referred to two Indian decisions: Controller of Estate Duty v. Birendra Kumar Sen and P. Gangadharan Pillai v. Controller of Estate Duty. These cases dealt with whether the donor was excluded from possession and enjoyment of the property gifted, concluding that income from the business gifted should not be treated as part of the estate if the donee used their own capital and effort.
6. Interpretation of "Accrued" Income:
The court interpreted the term "accrued" in section 34(4) to mean income arising as a natural growth from the property gifted. If the donee has absolute dominion over the gifted property and invests it, the resulting profit should not be included in the estate. However, if the income results naturally from the gifted property without the donee's intervention, it should be included.
7. Specifics of the Case:
In this case, the gift was not merely cash but Rs. 40,000 worth of stock-in-trade, cash, and cheques, which were immediately reinvested in the business. The profit of Rs. 31,069 was derived from the business and thus considered income accrued from the gifted property, falling within the scope of section 34(4).
8. Proportional Reduction of Profit:
The counsel for the accountable person argued that since Kader Ooran died on 14th March 1961, the profit should be proportionately reduced for the period before his death. Although this contention was valid, it was not raised earlier, and the court did not consider it sufficient to change the decision.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the sum of Rs. 31,069 should be included in the value of the estate of Kader Ooran. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, against the accountable person, and no order regarding costs was made. The Registrar was directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Tribunal.
-
1970 (11) TMI 10
Issues:
Provisional assessment under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 for the assessment year 1969-70 challenged by the petitioner. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority to make a provisional assessment order on an income not admitted by the assessee disputed.
Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, challenged the provisional assessment made for the assessment year 1969-70 and the subsequent tax recovery proceedings. The petitioner filed a return showing a net profit and claimed deductions. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer issued a notice proposing to disallow a significant sum claimed as deduction by the petitioner and to make a provisional assessment on a higher income amount. The provisional assessment order was made, assessing a tax amount. The petitioner objected to this order, contending that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to make a provisional assessment on an income not admitted by the assessee.
The court analyzed the relevant provision, section 20(1) of the Act, which allows the assessing authority to make a provisional assessment based on the return and accompanying documents, giving due effect to specific allowances and carried forward losses. Drawing a parallel with section 141 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the court referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that the assessing authority can call upon the assessee to pay tax provisionally on the admitted taxable income, without questioning the total income or the admissibility of claimed deductions. As the scheme of section 20(1) mirrored section 141, the court concluded that the assessing authority had overstepped jurisdiction by demanding tax on income not admitted by the petitioner.
Therefore, the court held the provisional assessment order, the demand based on it, and the recovery proceedings as illegal and set them aside. The petitioner was granted costs for the writ petition, including advocate's fee.
-
1970 (11) TMI 9
Issues: Assessment based on net profits, addition of cost of materials supplied, validity of notice under section 34, application of flat rate to receipts.
Assessment based on net profits: The judgment pertains to the assessment of the assessee, a contractor undertaking construction works for the M.E.S. Department. The Income-tax Officer made assessments for various years based on net profits determined at different percentages of amounts received by the assessee. Subsequently, it was discovered that the cost of materials supplied by the military authorities for the construction works had not been disclosed. This led to reassessment orders being issued under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, adding the costs of materials to the income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the reassessment but varied the percentages used to determine net income. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Income-tax Officer calculated income based on the total contract value, not deducting the cost of materials supplied.
Validity of notice under section 34: The High Court addressed the issue of whether the assessee had waived objections to the validity of the notice issued under section 34(1) of the Act. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had waived objections and held that the case fell under section 34(1) of the Act. The Court's analysis focused on the procedural aspects of the notice and the legal implications of the assessee's response to it.
Addition of cost of materials supplied: The Court considered whether the price of materials supplied by the military authorities should be included before applying a flat rate to the assessee's receipts. The assessee argued that as the materials were the property of the M.E.S. Department and were used solely for construction works, no profits were derived from them. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the Income-tax Officer determined income based on the total contract value, not considering individual material costs. The Court found no fault with the Tribunal's decision to apply a uniform flat rate to the entire contract amount.
Application of flat rate to receipts: The final issue involved whether the Tribunal was justified in applying the same flat rate to the price of the materials supplied by the department as was applied to other receipts of the assessee. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the percentage of profit was determined based on the total contract value and not on individual material costs. The Court ruled in favor of the revenue on this issue, along with the validity of the notice and the inclusion of material costs in the assessment.
|
9911796707
