|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 100 Records
-
1981 (5) TMI 20
Issues:
1. Whether the amount representing benefit to the assessee's children from the United Nations joint Staff Pension Fund should be excluded from the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1967-68?
Analysis:
The case involved a question regarding the taxation of benefits received by the assessee's children from the United Nations joint Staff Pension Fund. The assessee, a retired individual who previously worked for the World Health Organization, received a pension from the Fund along with an additional benefit for his children. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) included these amounts in the assessee's total income, considering them as profits in lieu of salary. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) upheld the inclusion of these amounts in the assessee's income but allowed for one-third of each amount to be excluded based on the contribution made by the assessee to the Fund. The Tribunal, however, held that the pension could not be correlated to the assessee's contribution and included the entire amount in the assessee's income. Regarding the children's benefit, the Tribunal upheld the exclusion of one-third of the amount, stating it was strictly for the benefit of the children and not taxable as the assessee's income.
The Tribunal's decision was challenged, and the High Court analyzed the nature of the payment from the Fund benefiting the assessee's children. The Court examined the regulations of the United Nations joint Staff Pension Fund, which detailed the contributions made by participants and member organizations, as well as the benefits payable upon retirement. The Court noted that the children's benefit was payable to the child and not the participant, continuing even after the participant's death. The Court concluded that since the benefit was recoverable by the child and did not fall under the provisions of Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, it should not be included in the assessee's income.
Referring to a previous decision, the Court clarified that the exemption under Section 18(b) of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act extended to pensionary benefits. However, in this case, the Court focused on the child's benefit being the income of the child and not the participant, exempting one-third of the children's benefits from taxation. The Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, allowing for costs and counsel's fee.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled that the children's benefit from the United Nations joint Staff Pension Fund should be excluded from the assessee's total income to the extent of one-third, as it was deemed the income of the children and not the assessee.
-
1981 (5) TMI 19
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the assessee-trust for exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Definition and scope of "charitable purpose" under section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Interpretation of the term "political conditions" within the context of the trust's objectives.
4. Whether the trust's activities involve the carrying on of any activity for profit.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility of the Assessee-Trust for Exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The core issue was whether the assessee-trust, M/s. Ganga Prasad Varma Memorial Society, was eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the trust was not eligible for such exemption because its activities involved the carrying on of an activity for profit. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that the trust's objectives included activities that generated income, such as money-lending and letting out immovable properties on hire.
2. Definition and Scope of "Charitable Purpose" under Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The court examined whether the objectives of the trust fell within the definition of "charitable purpose" as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. The definition includes "the advancement of any other object of general public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit." The court noted that the objects of the trust, which included the dissemination of knowledge and the raising of moral, intellectual, economic, social, and political conditions of the people, were indeed objects of general public utility.
3. Interpretation of the Term "Political Conditions" within the Context of the Trust's Objectives:
A significant point of contention was the interpretation of the term "political conditions" within the trust's objectives. The Tribunal had held that raising the political conditions of the people was not a charitable object. However, the court clarified that the term "political conditions" in this context did not imply the advancement of any political theory or ideology but referred to the broader sense of improving the general condition of the people to make them better citizens. The court concluded that this objective was also an object of general public utility.
4. Whether the Trust's Activities Involve the Carrying on of Any Activity for Profit:
The court addressed whether the trust's activities could be considered as carrying on an activity for profit, which would disqualify it from the exemption under section 11. The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, which held that the purpose of a trust must not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. The court emphasized that the trust's income-generating activities, such as letting out properties and earning interest, were incidental to its main charitable objectives. The income was utilized exclusively for promoting the trust's charitable purposes, thereby meeting the requirements of section 2(15).
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the trust's objectives were indeed charitable within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The income generated by the trust was utilized for its charitable purposes and did not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. Therefore, the trust was entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The court answered the referred question in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the department, and awarded costs of Rs. 200 to the assessee.
-
1981 (5) TMI 18
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the building in question qualifies as "plant" for the purpose of claiming development rebate u/s 33 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Summary:
Issue 1: Definition and Scope of "Plant"
The primary issue was whether the building used for manufacturing saccharine qualifies as "plant" and is thus eligible for development rebate u/s 33 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the building, constructed with specific atmospheric controls, was integral to the manufacturing process and should be considered part of the plant. The ITO, AAC, and Tribunal all rejected this claim, holding that a building does not fall within the definition of "plant" as per s. 43(3) of the Act.
Issue 2: Judicial Precedents and Functional Test
The court examined various judicial precedents to determine the scope of "plant." It referred to cases like IRC v. Barclay, Curle & Co. Ltd., CIT v. Kanodia Cold Storage, and CIT v. Caltex Oil Refining (I) Ltd., among others. These cases highlighted that the definition of "plant" is inclusive and should be given a wide meaning. However, the functional test must be applied to ascertain whether a building or structure fulfills the function of a plant or merely serves as a setting for business operations.
Issue 3: Application of Principles to the Present Case
Applying the principles derived from the precedents, the court concluded that the building in question did not qualify as "plant." It was deemed a mere setting where the manufacturing of saccharine was carried on, rather than an integral part of the manufacturing process. The court noted that other companies manufactured saccharine in normal buildings without special temperature controls, indicating that the specific features of the building were not essential for the manufacturing process.
Conclusion:
The court held that the building in question did not come within the expression "plant" and thus was not entitled to the development rebate. The question was answered in favor of the revenue, and the revenue was entitled to costs.
-
1981 (5) TMI 17
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Constitutionality of Section 3 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the reassessment order.
Summary:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of ss. 147 and 148 of the Act, arguing that they delegate arbitrary and uncontrolled power to the ITO to reopen an assessment, violating arts. 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. The court found no substance in this challenge, stating that these sections contain necessary safeguards ensuring fair play to an assessee. The court highlighted that s. 148(2) requires the ITO to record reasons for initiating reassessment, which can be scrutinized by higher authorities. The court concluded that these provisions are constitutional and do not confer arbitrary power on the ITO.
2. Constitutionality of Section 3 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948:
The petitioner argued that s. 3 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948, is unconstitutional as it arbitrarily dispenses with the formal proof of a document. The court rejected this argument, stating that s. 3 does not dispense with the proof of a document according to law if it is to be used as evidence in a court of law. The section merely enables a court to dispense with the proof of the genuineness of the seal and signatures of a diplomatic or consular officer on a particular document. The court found no force in the argument and upheld the constitutionality of s. 3.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the reassessment order:
The petitioner contended that the reassessment order was made in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court examined the material on record and found this plea groundless. The court noted that the reasons recorded by the ITO under s. 148(2) were relevant and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the material gathered during the enquiry. The court concluded that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of being heard and that the principles of natural justice were not violated. The court emphasized that the requirements of natural justice depend on the circumstances of the case and found that they were fully met in this instance.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition in limine, finding no merit in the challenges to the constitutionality of ss. 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and s. 3 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948. The court also found no violation of the principles of natural justice in the reassessment order.
-
1981 (5) TMI 16
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the "staff benefit reserve" and "self-insurance reserve" constituted reserves within the meaning of Rule 1 of Schedule II to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
2. Whether the "staff bonus reserve" constituted a reserve within the meaning of Rule 1 of Schedule II to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Staff Benefit Reserve and Self-Insurance Reserve:
The primary issue was whether the amounts set apart by the assessee under the "staff benefit reserve" and "self-insurance reserve" could be considered as "reserves" under Rule 1 of Schedule II to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) initially opined that these amounts were "current liabilities and provisions" and not "reserves." However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, holding that these amounts were indeed "reserves."
- Staff Benefit Reserve: The Corporation allocated a portion of its surplus every year under different heads, including the "staff benefit reserve," for implementing various benefit schemes. The Tribunal found that there was no obligation on the part of the company to incur any expenditure in this respect, and the application of money was purely discretionary. Thus, the amounts set apart could not be described as provisions for any known liability and were correctly treated as reserves by the Tribunal.
- Self-Insurance Reserve: The Corporation operated a self-insurance scheme to economize on insurance charges for imported commodities. The Tribunal concluded that this was a fund built up by the company to offset future losses due to marine transit risks not covered by regular insurance. There was no obligation on the part of the company to incur this expenditure, and hence, the amounts set apart were not provisions but reserves.
The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the amounts set apart under these heads did not constitute provisions for any known liability and were rightly considered reserves.
2. Staff Bonus Reserve:
The second issue was whether the "staff bonus reserve" constituted a reserve. The AAC argued that this reserve was a provision for a statutory liability under the Bonus Act, 1965, and thus a contingent liability. The Tribunal, however, held that there was no definite liability in the year under consideration, and the amounts set apart were reserves.
- Staff Bonus Reserve: The reserve was created to meet the statutory liability under the Bonus Act, which required the company to pay a minimum bonus even in the absence of sufficient profits. The Tribunal found that the amounts set apart were for a future contingent liability, the exact amount of which could not be determined with substantial accuracy at the date of the balance-sheet. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion, stating that the amounts set apart did not constitute a provision for any known liability as there was no definite probability of the company having to meet these liabilities as of the relevant dates.
Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the "staff benefit reserve," "self-insurance reserve," and "staff bonus reserve" constituted reserves within the meaning of Rule 1 of Schedule II to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The amounts set apart under these heads did not fall under the category of "current liabilities and provisions" and were correctly treated as reserves by the Tribunal. The questions referred were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with costs awarded to the assessee.
-
1981 (5) TMI 15
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the initiation of acquisition proceedings under Section 269C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of fair market value of the property.
3. Applicability of valuation methods and the correctness of the valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer.
4. Legal sustainability of the acquisition order under Chapter XX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the initiation of acquisition proceedings under Section 269C of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant contended that there were no materials for the initiation of the proceedings, making the initiation bad. The revenue argued that the Valuation Officer's report was sufficient material for initiating the proceedings, fulfilling the requirements of Section 269C. The court noted that the initiation must be based on a belief that the fair market value exceeds the apparent consideration by at least 15%, and that the consideration was not truly stated to facilitate tax evasion or concealment of income. The court found that the initiation was based solely on the Valuation Officer's report, which was not sufficient material to justify the initiation of proceedings under Section 269C.
2. Determination of fair market value of the property:
The Departmental Valuation Officer valued the entire property at Rs. 1,29,501 and the individual 1/3rd share at Rs. 43,167 against the admitted consideration of Rs. 34,000. The appellant's valuer estimated the property value at Rs. 98,444, considering the rental value and the land and building method. The court found arithmetical inaccuracies in the Departmental Valuation Officer's calculations, noting that 4.7 kottahs at Rs. 27,000 per kottah should be Rs. 1,19,812.50, not Rs. 1,26,900. After correcting this and considering a 10% deduction for the undivided share, the fair market value was Rs. 1,10,171.50, making the 1/3rd share Rs. 36,723.83, which is not 15% higher than the sale price of Rs. 34,000.
3. Applicability of valuation methods and the correctness of the valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer:
The court discussed the appropriateness of using different valuation methods, such as the land and building method and the rental method. It was noted that a combination of methods might be necessary depending on the facts and circumstances. The Departmental Valuation Officer's reliance on the development method was questioned, as the property was not fully developed and had tenants with protected tenancy rights. The court emphasized that valuation should reflect the fair market value, considering the property's condition and legal constraints.
4. Legal sustainability of the acquisition order under Chapter XX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court concluded that the acquisition order could not be sustained as the fair market value did not exceed the sale price by 15%, which is a prerequisite for invoking Chapter XX-A. The court also found that the initiation of proceedings was improper due to the lack of sufficient material and the incorrect application of valuation methods. Consequently, the acquisition order under Section 269F(6) was quashed and set aside.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the initiation of proceedings and the acquisition order under Chapter XX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to insufficient material for initiation, incorrect valuation methods, and the fair market value not exceeding the sale price by the required margin. The interim order of injunction was vacated, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
-
1981 (5) TMI 14
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Tax Recovery Officer's order dated July 14, 1978.
2. Legality of the Commissioner's order dated December 30, 1978.
3. Alleged violations of rules under Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Validity of the auction sale of the petitioner's property.
5. Petitioner's claim of no saleable interest in the property.
6. Alleged inadequate consideration for the property sold.
7. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Tax Recovery Officer's Order dated July 14, 1978:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) under Rule 61 of Schedule II to the Income Tax Act, 1961, which dismissed the petitioner's application to set aside the sale of his property. The TRO's decision was based on the grounds that the petitioner did not deposit the tax claimed, as required under Rule 61(b) of Schedule II, and failed to prove substantial injury due to material irregularity in the sale process.
2. Legality of the Commissioner's Order dated December 30, 1978:
The petitioner also challenged the Commissioner's order dismissing his appeal under Rule 86(1)(c) of Schedule II. The petitioner argued that the order was made in violation of natural justice as the Commissioner refused to adjourn the hearing, thereby denying the petitioner adequate opportunity to present his case. However, the court found that the petitioner had ample opportunity to present his case and that the refusal to adjourn was justified.
3. Alleged Violations of Rules under Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner contended several violations:
- Rule 15(2): The sale was adjourned multiple times beyond 30 days without issuing a fresh sale proclamation, constituting a material irregularity.
- Rule 52: The sale proclamation was not published in the language of the district, which was refuted as the records showed publication in Kannada.
- Rule 55: The sale took place more than 30 days after the proclamation was affixed, which the court found to be compliant with the rule.
4. Validity of the Auction Sale of the Petitioner's Property:
The petitioner argued that the auction sale was invalid due to material irregularities and inadequate consideration. The court noted that while there was a material irregularity (violation of Rule 15(2)), the petitioner failed to prove substantial injury caused by this irregularity. The property fetched Rs. 1,08,000 against a reserved price of Rs. 55,000, and the petitioner's valuation report lacked credibility.
5. Petitioner's Claim of No Saleable Interest in the Property:
The petitioner claimed he had no saleable interest in the property sold. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence to support this claim. The property was sold legally under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and the petitioner had not demonstrated any legal impediment to the sale.
6. Alleged Inadequate Consideration for the Property Sold:
The petitioner contended that the sale price was far below the market value, causing substantial injury. The court found no substantial evidence to support this claim. The valuation report provided by the petitioner was undated and lacked corroborative details. The sale price, though lower than the petitioner's valuation, was not deemed unreasonable.
7. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:
The petitioner sought to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to set aside the sale. The court acknowledged its wide powers under these articles but emphasized that such powers are exercised sparingly, particularly when statutory remedies have been exhausted. The court held that the petitioner's failure to stay the assessment orders and the subsequent confirmation of the sale by the TRO and Commissioner precluded the High Court from intervening merely on grounds of hardship.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders of the TRO and the Commissioner. It ruled that while there was a material irregularity in the sale process, the petitioner failed to prove substantial injury resulting from it. The court also emphasized the importance of finality in auction sales for tax recovery, noting that setting aside such sales could undermine public confidence and deter potential bidders.
-
1981 (5) TMI 13
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the agreement satisfies the requirement of Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the services rendered by the petitioner-company can be classified as technical services under Section 80-O.
3. Whether the petitioner-company is entitled to approval under the first part of Section 80-O for making available information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific knowledge, experience, or skill.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the agreement satisfies the requirement of Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court examined the agreements between the petitioner-company and the foreign companies, particularly focusing on the agreement with the Nepal company. The agreements were scrutinized to determine if they met the criteria laid out in Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 80-O pertains to deductions on income received by way of royalty, commission, fees, or similar payments for the use of patents, inventions, models, designs, secret formulas, or processes, or for rendering technical services outside India.
2. Whether the services rendered by the petitioner-company can be classified as technical services under Section 80-O:
The court analyzed whether the services provided by the petitioner-company, such as engineering, architectural, interior decoration, and training services, could be considered technical services. The court distinguished the present case from the precedent set in J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. CBDT, where managerial services were not considered technical services. It was noted that the management of a hotel involves specialized technical skills, unlike the broader managerial services discussed in J.K. (Bombay). The court emphasized that managing a hotel requires expertise in various domains, such as room decoration, menu planning, guest arrangements, and food preparation, which are inherently technical.
The court also referenced the case of Ghai Lamba Catering Consultants P. Ltd. v. CBDT, where the petitioner-company was not disqualified on the grounds of managing a company but was considered part of a joint venture. The court concluded that the services rendered by the petitioner-company in managing the hotel were technical in nature and differed from the services rendered by managing agents in the J.K. (Bombay) case.
3. Whether the petitioner-company is entitled to approval under the first part of Section 80-O for making available information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific knowledge, experience, or skill:
The petitioner-company argued that it was entitled to approval under Section 80-O for providing information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific knowledge, experience, or skill. However, the court found no provision in the agreement that indicated the petitioner-company was giving such information to the foreign company. Therefore, this argument was not accepted.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order of respondent No. 1, stating that the case was not covered by the judgment in J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. CBDT. The court directed that approval be accorded for the agreement with the Nepal company. As for the agreement with the Singapore company, the case was remanded to the Board for fresh consideration in light of the observations made. The court left the parties to bear their own costs due to the complexity of the issues involved.
-
1981 (5) TMI 12
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Eligibility of the assessee trust for exemption under Section 10(22) in respect of income from educational institutions.
3. Interpretation of "existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit."
4. Relevance of the trust's other charitable purposes to the eligibility for exemption.
5. Impact of surplus income and its utilization on the eligibility for exemption.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The section exempts "any income of a University or other educational institution, existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit." The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim on the grounds that the assessee, being a trust and not an educational institution, could not avail of the exemption. The ITO emphasized that the income must be "of" an educational institution, not "from" an educational institution.
2. Eligibility of the Assessee Trust for Exemption under Section 10(22):
The Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision, stating that the trust, which owned the educational institutions, had other charitable purposes and was not solely for educational purposes. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decisions in Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT and Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT, indicating that the trust's activities were mixed and lacked restrictions on profit-making.
3. Interpretation of "Existing Solely for Educational Purposes and Not for Purposes of Profit":
The Tribunal emphasized the absence of restrictions on profit-making and the mixed nature of the trust's objects. The Tribunal concluded that the educational institutions did not exist solely for educational purposes and were run for profit. The Tribunal also noted that the trust deed allowed for the application of income to non-educational charitable purposes.
4. Relevance of the Trust's Other Charitable Purposes to the Eligibility for Exemption:
The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the fact that the trust had objects beyond education, which were charitable but not solely educational. The Tribunal held that the mixed objects of the trust disqualified it from exemption under Section 10(22).
5. Impact of Surplus Income and Its Utilization on the Eligibility for Exemption:
The Tribunal noted that the educational institutions generated surplus income, which was not restricted from being used for non-educational purposes. This surplus income, if not solely used for educational purposes, indicated that the institutions were run for profit, further disqualifying them from exemption under Section 10(22).
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in denying the exemption under Section 10(22). The Court held that the income of the educational institutions, even if owned by a trust with other charitable objects, could still qualify for exemption if the educational institutions existed solely for educational purposes and not for profit. The Court emphasized that the surplus income, if intended for educational purposes and not for personal gain, did not disqualify the institutions from exemption. The Court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the assessee, and held that the trust was entitled to the exemption under Section 10(22).
Judgment:
With these observations, the question is answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee. The trust which owned the educational institution may have other charitable though not educational purposes but if taking all the relevant factors, the educational institution generating the income was existing for only educational purposes then the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of the Act.
-
1981 (5) TMI 11
Issues Involved
1. Whether two separate assessments should be made for the periods before and after the death of a partner, or if it is a case of change in the constitution of the firm under Section 187 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis
Issue 1: Separate Assessments vs. Change in Constitution
Facts:
In both cases, the firms experienced the death of a partner during the previous year. The original partnership deeds did not contain provisions for continuation upon a partner's death, leading to the dissolution of the firms. New partnerships were formed with the remaining partners and new entrants. The firms filed separate income returns for the periods before and after the death of the partners, claiming that two separate assessments should be made.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 187: Deals with changes in the constitution of a firm.
- Section 188: Pertains to the succession of one firm by another.
- Section 189: Covers the dissolution of a firm or discontinuation of business.
Arguments:
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) argued that the death of a partner resulted in merely a change in the constitution of the firm under Section 187, necessitating a single assessment for the entire previous year. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, accepted the assessee's plea for separate assessments, leading to the references to the High Court.
Court's Analysis:
The court examined various judgments and legal principles, notably:
- A firm is not a juristic entity but a compendious name for its partners.
- The Indian Partnership Act recognizes the mercantile view of a firm, allowing for dissolution upon a partner's death unless otherwise stipulated.
- Section 187 does not contain a deeming provision to continue the firm despite dissolution.
The court referred to multiple judgments supporting the view that the death of a partner leads to the dissolution of the firm, necessitating separate assessments. These include decisions from the Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, Madras, Gujarat, and Calcutta High Courts.
Conclusion:
The court held that the death of a partner resulted in the dissolution of the firm, and therefore, separate assessments should be made for the periods before and after the dissolution. The Tribunal's decision was upheld for both cases:
- ITR No. 1/73: Two assessments should be made for the firm M/s. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar for the periods April 1, 1968, to July 13, 1968, and July 14, 1968, to March 28, 1969.
- ITR No. 64/73: Two assessments should be made for the firm M/s. K. Gian Chand Jain & Company for the periods October 24, 1964, to February 5, 1965, and February 6, 1965, to October 23, 1965.
The court emphasized that the partnership law principles apply unless explicitly overridden by the Income Tax Act. The decision aligns with the majority view in judicial precedents, ensuring that the dissolution of a firm due to a partner's death is recognized for tax assessment purposes.
-
1981 (5) TMI 10
Issues:
1. Interpretation of penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Consideration of genuineness of cash credits and loans.
3. Assessment of undisclosed income and concealment of income.
4. Admissibility of disclosure petitions as evidence.
5. Opportunity for the assessee to prove the genuineness of credits.
6. Burden of proof in penalty proceedings.
7. Denial of summoning creditors for verification.
8. Application of quasi-criminal nature in penalty proceedings.
Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta addressed a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the cancellation of a penalty order made under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 1963-64. The case involved discrepancies between the income declared by the assessee and the income assessed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), primarily related to cash credits and loans. The ITO added amounts from undisclosed sources to the assessed income, alleging lack of proof of genuineness. The Tribunal considered the disclosure petitions submitted by the partners of the firm, admitting the cash credits as concealed income, but emphasized the distinction between the partners' admission and the firm's liability. The Tribunal highlighted the assessee's right to challenge the admission and prove the genuineness of the credits, emphasizing the quasi-criminal nature of penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal criticized the IAC for not summoning the creditors to verify the genuineness of the loans, denying the assessee the opportunity to support its claim. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing the burden of proof on the revenue to establish concealment of income and the assessee's right to present evidence to the contrary. The Court noted the absence of a culpable mind in the assessee's actions and upheld the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty order. The Court referred to previous judgments but concluded that the specific circumstances of this case warranted a ruling in favor of the assessee.
The judgment highlighted the importance of providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to defend against penalty proceedings, especially in cases involving the genuineness of transactions and the burden of proof on the revenue. The Court underscored the need for a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances before imposing penalties, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the quasi-criminal nature of such proceedings. The decision ultimately favored the assessee, emphasizing the right to challenge admissions and prove the legitimacy of transactions in penalty proceedings.
-
1981 (5) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount of Rs. 24,509 incurred on the improvement of the vacuum filter constitutes an allowable deduction under sections 31, 32(1)(iii), 35, and 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the sum of Rs. 3,138 representing the cost of tools and implements, laboratory equipment, and furniture and fixtures is an allowable deduction under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) or section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Deduction for Improvement of Vacuum Filter
Facts:
The assessee, a public limited company, spent Rs. 25,259 on improving a vacuum filter, which was initially installed to explore more economical filtration methods. Despite the improvements, the vacuum filter was discarded, and the assessee claimed this expenditure as revenue expenditure.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal disallowed the deduction, stating the amount represented capital expenditure and did not fall under sections 31, 32(1)(iii), 35, or 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Court's Analysis:
The court examined whether the expenditure was capital or revenue in nature. It emphasized that an expenditure is considered revenue if it facilitates the business operations without creating a new asset or expanding the profit-making apparatus. The court noted that the improvements made were to enhance the existing asset (vacuum filter) and did not create a new asset or add to the fixed capital.
Precedents Cited:
- CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji & Co.: The court held that if specific deductions fail, the residuary section 37 can be invoked for allowable business expenditure.
- L. H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: Contributions towards road construction for business facilitation were considered revenue expenditure.
- Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT: Expenditure for preserving or maintaining capital assets can be revenue expenditure.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the expenditure on the vacuum filter was for improving an existing asset to make the business more efficient and profitable. Therefore, it constitutes an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first question was answered in the negative, favoring the assessee.
Issue 2: Deduction for Tools, Implements, Laboratory Equipment, and Furniture and Fixtures
Facts:
The assessee claimed deductions for the cost of tools and implements, laboratory equipment, and furniture and fixtures, which were purchased and discarded within the same year.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal disallowed Rs. 3,138 of the total expenditure, stating it was capital expenditure on assets written off in the same year.
Court's Analysis:
The court referred to section 43(3) of the Act, which includes scientific apparatus under "plant" for depreciation purposes. It noted that under section 32(1)(ii), items costing less than Rs. 750 could be fully depreciated. However, section 34(2)(ii) disallows depreciation if the asset is discarded within the same year.
Precedents Cited:
- CIT v. Bharat Cinema: Urgent repairs were considered revenue expenditure.
- CIT v. Bhagat Industries Corporation Ltd.: Durable repairs to a building were considered business expenditure.
Conclusion:
Even if depreciation under section 32 is not claimable, the expenditure is still revenue in nature, wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The tools, implements, laboratory equipment, and furniture and fixtures were necessary for efficient business operations. Thus, the expenditure is an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. The second question was answered in the negative, favoring the assessee.
Final Judgment:
Both questions were answered in favor of the assessee, with no costs. The court held that the expenditures in question were allowable deductions under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1981 (5) TMI 8
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure of Rs. 22,301 incurred by the assessee on repairs to the building constitutes an expenditure admissible u/s 30(a)(i) or u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Judgment Summary:
Issue 1: Admissibility of Expenditure u/s 30(a)(i)
The Tribunal disallowed the deduction under s. 30(a)(i) on the grounds that there was no written agreement obligating the lessee to bear the cost of repairs. However, the High Court interpreted clause (iv) of the lease deed in conjunction with s. 108(m) of the Transfer of Property Act, which mandates the lessee to keep the property in good condition. The court held that the lessee's obligation to maintain the building in a "good condition" inherently included necessary repairs, even without a specific agreement. Thus, the expenditure on repairs was admissible under s. 30(a)(i).
Issue 2: Admissibility of Expenditure u/s 37
The Tribunal also held that the expenditure was of a capital nature and not admissible under s. 37. The High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the nature of the expenditure should be viewed in the context of the business environment and specific circumstances. The court referenced precedents, including Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT and L. H. Sugar Factory and Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, which established that even enduring benefits could be considered revenue expenditure if they facilitated business operations without altering fixed capital. The court concluded that the repairs were necessary for the business and did not result in a capital asset, thus qualifying as revenue expenditure under s. 37.
Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the expenditure of Rs. 22,301 on repairs was admissible as a deduction both u/s 30(a)(i) and u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's decision was overturned, and the reference was answered in favor of the assessee.
-
1981 (5) TMI 7
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of Rs. 47,30,892 as business income.
2. Whether the transaction amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade producing business income u/s 2(6C) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.
Summary:
Issue 1: Taxability of Rs. 47,30,892 as Business Income
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 47,30,892 was taxable under the head "Business." The assessee, who controlled both Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. and Asia Udyog Pvt. Ltd., entered into agreements that transferred the liability of Rs. 67,00,000 to him for a consideration of the same amount. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) concluded that the assessee derived a gain from this transaction, which was a planned effort to make a profit. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the payments to be made by the assessee aggregated to Rs. 20,30,892, resulting in a net assessable business income of Rs. 47,30,892.
Issue 2: Adventure in the Nature of Trade
The Tribunal found that the transaction amounted to an adventure in the nature of trade, thus producing business income within the meaning of s. 2(6C) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the assessee used his position to derive gain from the so-called "liability" to the shareholders, and the agreements were a camouflage to conceal the real gain. The dominant intention of the assessee was to embark on a venture in the nature of trade, and the gain resulted from an activity that was itself a business activity. The court referenced similar cases, such as G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT and Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. CIT, to support the conclusion that even isolated transactions can be considered adventures in the nature of trade if the intention is to make a profit.
Conclusion:
The court answered both questions in the affirmative, in favor of the department and against the assessee, confirming that the amount was taxable as business income and that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessee was ordered to pay costs, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500.
-
1981 (5) TMI 6
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deduction under section 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1964 and 1965 for export profits.
2. Requirement of maintaining separate accounts for export business.
3. Computation of profits and gains from export under Rule 2(3) of the Income-tax (Determination of Export Profits) Rules.
4. Inclusion of cash subsidies and import entitlements in export profits.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1964 and 1965:
The assessee, a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cotton textiles, claimed deductions under section 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1964 and 1965, for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The key question was whether the assessee-company was entitled to such deductions even though it did not maintain separate accounts for the export business and could not establish that the export business resulted in any profit. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the condition precedent for the grant of deduction, i.e., earning of profit in export business, was not satisfied.
2. Requirement of Maintaining Separate Accounts for Export Business:
The assessee-company did not maintain separate accounts for its export trade and failed to provide evidence to establish whether it had made any profit from direct export sales. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) had requested details regarding the cost of production and expenses incurred in exporting the cloth, which the assessee-company was unable to produce. The Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision, emphasizing that the onus was on the assessee to prove that it had derived profits and gains from export sales to claim the rebate.
3. Computation of Profits and Gains from Export under Rule 2(3) of the Income-tax (Determination of Export Profits) Rules:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) initially took the view that the ITO should have worked out the profits and gains derived from direct export sales under sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of the Income-tax (Determination of Export Profits) Rules, 1964 and 1965. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the primary condition for claiming rebate was that the assessee must establish that it had made profits from the export of goods. If the assessee failed to establish this fact, the question of computation under Rule 2(3) did not arise.
4. Inclusion of Cash Subsidies and Import Entitlements in Export Profits:
The Tribunal also addressed the issue of whether benefits like cash subsidies and import entitlements acquired as a result of exports should be included in the computation of profits and gains derived from export of goods. The Tribunal noted that there must be a direct nexus between the export activity and the earning of profits and gains. Cash subsidies were considered directly connected to export of goods, but the income derived from sale of import entitlements or savings from import of materials at lower prices was not considered to have a direct nexus with the export of goods.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee-company was not entitled to any rebate under section 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1964 and 1965, as it failed to establish that it had derived profits and gains from direct export sales. The requirement of maintaining separate accounts for export business was emphasized, and the computation of profits under Rule 2(3) was deemed irrelevant unless the primary condition of proving export profits was met. The inclusion of cash subsidies in export profits was accepted, but not the income from sale of import entitlements or savings from imports. The questions referred to the court were answered in the affirmative and against the assessee-company.
-
1981 (5) TMI 5
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 13,02,495 represented revenue loss accruing to the assessee during the assessment year 1967-68 due to devaluation of the rupee on June 6, 1966.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Assessment Year and Devaluation Loss:
The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 13,02,495 represented a revenue loss for the assessee during the assessment year 1967-68 due to the rupee's devaluation on June 6, 1966. The assessee, a non-resident company with its head office in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, claimed a devaluation loss of Rs. 14,55,970. This amount was calculated based on the credit balance of the head office with the Indian branch, representing the difference in exchange rates between dinars and Indian rupees as of May 5, 1966, and June 6, 1966.
2. Income Tax Officer's (ITO) View:
The ITO disallowed the deduction, stating the loss could only be claimed when the circulating capital was remitted from India to Yugoslavia. Since the remittances occurred in January and March 1968, the loss could not be considered for the 1967-68 assessment year. The ITO also argued that since the projects were completed before the devaluation, there were no expenses against which the devaluation loss could be claimed. The ITO further stated that the head office and branch office should be considered as one entity, and any loss due to devaluation was capital loss, not revenue loss.
3. Appellate Assistant Commissioner's (AAC) View:
The AAC upheld the ITO's decision, stating that the notional loss on June 6, 1966, was not a revenue loss as the current account between the head office and Indian branch represented capital employed in India. The AAC emphasized that the head office and branch office were not separate entities, and the loss was related to capital invested, not a trading expense.
4. Tribunal's View:
The Tribunal reversed the AAC's decision, stating the assessee was entitled to deduct the devaluation loss for the 1967-68 assessment year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had brought funds from Yugoslavia for its business in India, and the devaluation of the rupee led to a reduction in the value of these funds in terms of dinars. The Tribunal held that the loss arose from devaluation and did not depend on actual remittance. The Tribunal viewed the funds as circulating capital, and the depreciation in value due to devaluation was a trading loss.
5. Legal Precedents and Analysis:
The court reviewed several legal precedents, including:
- Imperial Tobacco Co. v. Kelly [1943] 25 TC 292: This case involved the appreciation of dollars held for business purposes, which was taxed in the year of conversion.
- CIT v. Mogul Line Ltd. [1962] 46 ITR 590: This case held that appreciation or depreciation in foreign funds not utilized for business operations did not result in taxable profit.
- CIT v. Canara Bank Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 328: The Supreme Court held that appreciation of blocked funds not utilized in business operations was a capital receipt.
- Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1: The Supreme Court clarified that profit or loss from foreign currency held on revenue account or as circulating capital was trading profit or loss, but if held as a capital asset, it was capital profit or loss.
- Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 481: This case emphasized that profit arises from business operations, not from the valuation of closing stock.
6. Court's Conclusion:
The court concluded that since the repatriation to the head office occurred after the relevant assessment year and there was no diminution in the value of Indian currency, there was no revenue loss for the year in question. The court held that the loss, if any, should be considered in the year of actual conversion. Consequently, the question was answered in the negative and in favor of the revenue.
Final Judgment:
The court ruled that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 13,02,495 represented revenue loss for the assessment year 1967-68 due to the rupee's devaluation. The question was answered in the negative, in favor of the revenue, with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (5) TMI 4
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the trust and its implications on the assessment.
3. Double taxation concerns regarding the assessment of the same income in different capacities.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis that the original assessment was not proper. The Tribunal upheld the ITO's action, stating, "The Income-tax Officer could reasonably believe that income had escaped assessment in the hands of the entity as such." The Tribunal concluded that the High Court's judgment constituted information that justified the reassessment. The Tribunal further noted, "We are thus satisfied that there was information which came to the possession of the Income-tax Officer after the original assessment. That information showed that the original assessment was not the proper one and that income could be assessed directly in the hands of the firm as such."
2. Validity of the trust and its implications on the assessment:
The trust was deemed invalid based on the High Court's previous judgment in the case of Ganpatrai Sagarmal (Trustees) for Charity Fund v. CIT [1963] 47 ITR 625. The Division Bench observed, "The document only showed that at some date in the past, the two partners had agreed that the entire properties of the business should be transferred to themselves and others as trustees but the deed did not record that such transfer was ever effectuated." Consequently, the ITO assessed the firm as an "unregistered firm" (U.R.F.) since there was no valid trust. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) supported this view, stating, "There being no valid trust, there could be no beneficiary, no charity, no settlor or donor and consequently the fate of all assessments made on such non-existent persons can be easily guessed."
3. Double taxation concerns regarding the assessment of the same income in different capacities:
The assessee argued that reassessing the income in the hands of the firm after it had already been assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries amounted to double taxation. The Tribunal rejected this argument, clarifying, "It is true that an option is available to the ITO, to tax the beneficiaries or the trustees, under s. 41. In order that this provision should apply, there must be trust. As a result of the High Court's judgment it is clear that there was no trust." The Tribunal further stated, "Therefore, there was no question of any choice being exercised by the ITO under s. 41." The High Court affirmed this view, noting, "If one assessment is gone or is treated to have gone because of the operation of some legal principle and the same income is subjected to tax in the hands of the same individual in another capacity or in the hands of some other person, as the case may be, then the principle of double taxation is not attracted."
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147(b) were valid, the trust was invalid, and the principle of double taxation did not apply. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue. The court stated, "In the premises, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue."
Costs:
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their own costs."
Separate Judgment:
SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J. concurred with the judgment.
-
1981 (5) TMI 3
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for relief u/s 80-I on profits from the manufacture and sale of limestone.
2. Eligibility for relief u/s 80-I on profits from the manufacture of lime.
3. Eligibility for relief u/s 80-I on profits from the manufacture of lime and limestone through third parties.
Summary:
1. Eligibility for relief u/s 80-I on profits from the manufacture and sale of limestone:
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) granted relief u/s 80-I to the assessee on profits derived from the manufacture and sale of limestone from its own quarries. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), who agreed that the profits from the manufacture of limestone alone were entitled to the concession under s. 80-I.
2. Eligibility for relief u/s 80-I on profits from the manufacture of lime:
The AAC denied relief u/s 80-I on profits derived from the manufacture of lime, either quicklime or slaked lime, stating that these were not covered by item 3 of Sch. VI or any other item in that Schedule. However, the Tribunal found that lime is nothing but calcined limestone and that the production of lime is an extension of the quarrying of limestone. The Tribunal held that the production of lime and limestone are integrated, composite parts of one productive activity of the assessee and directed the ITO to grant relief u/s 80-I on the profits derived from the sale of lime manufactured by the assessee.
3. Eligibility for relief u/s 80-I on profits from the manufacture of lime and limestone through third parties:
The ITO and AAC denied relief u/s 80-I on profits derived from the manufacture of lime and limestone through Sanderson & Co. and Dewan Lime Co., as the assessee did not manufacture these items itself but got them manufactured through others. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the absence of written agreements or evidence of control or supervision by the assessee over the production by the third parties. Therefore, the basic conditions for relief u/s 80-I were not satisfied.
Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the manufacture of lime by the assessee out of limestone produced in its quarries was a priority industry within the meaning of section 80B(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with item 3 of the Sixth Schedule to the said Act. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to relief u/s 80-I in respect of the profits and gains derived from such manufacture of lime. The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.
-
1981 (5) TMI 2
Issues Involved
1. Taxability of interest received on compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Applicability of cash or accrual accounting methods.
3. Proportionate assessment of interest over multiple years.
Detailed Analysis
1. Taxability of Interest Received on Compensation Under the Land Acquisition Act
The primary issue was whether the entire interest amount of Rs. 86,208 received in the assessment year 1962-63 should be taxed in that year or proportionately over the years it accrued. The interest was paid under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act for the period from April 5, 1950, to April 25, 1961, due to the delayed payment of compensation for the acquired property.
The Tribunal held that the interest accrued year by year from the date of possession (April 5, 1950) until the date of payment (April 25, 1961), and only the proportionate interest for the assessment year 1962-63 should be taxed in that year. This decision was supported by the case of CIT v. Sampangiramaiah [1968] 69 ITR 159 (Mys), which held that interest should be assessed proportionately over the relevant years.
2. Applicability of Cash or Accrual Accounting Methods
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially taxed the entire interest amount in the assessment year 1962-63, arguing that the assessee followed the cash system of accounting. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal found that the method of accounting was irrelevant in this case. The AAC noted that the interest income had accrued from the date of possession, and thus, the entire interest could not be taxed in a single year.
The Tribunal, referring to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, emphasized that the interest accrued annually from the date of possession and should be assessed proportionately. This was further supported by the Supreme Court's interpretation in E. D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 26 ITR 27 (SC), which clarified that income accrues when the right to receive it arises, not necessarily when it is received.
3. Proportionate Assessment of Interest Over Multiple Years
The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, which argued that the entire interest amount should be taxed in the year of receipt, citing the case of Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 651 (AP). However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, noting that the right to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act was not inchoate but accrued annually.
The Tribunal's decision was further supported by the Supreme Court in Dr. Shamlal Narula v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 151, which held that statutory interest under Section 34 is a revenue receipt liable to tax and accrues annually. The Orissa High Court in Jayanarayan Panigrahi v. CIT [1974] 93 ITR 102 also supported the annual accrual of interest, emphasizing that the right to receive interest was absolute and not contingent.
The Tribunal concluded that only the interest accrued in the relevant assessment year should be taxed, aligning with the established legal principles that distinguish between compensation and interest on delayed compensation.
Conclusion
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the proportionate interest for the assessment year 1962-63 alone should be taxed in that year. The judgment emphasized that interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act accrues annually and should be assessed accordingly. The Revenue was held liable for costs, and the decision was unanimously agreed upon by both judges.
-
1981 (5) TMI 1
Held that the making of an assessment against a declarant on his disclosure statement under s. 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, cannot deprive an ITO of jurisdiction to assess the same receipt in the hands of another person if, in a properly constituted assessment proceeding under the I.T. Act, the receipt can be regarded as the taxable income of such other person
|
9911796707
