Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-12-1985
Reported in : (1986)51CTR(Del)1; 158ITR391(Delhi); 1986RLR124
..... in detail with the provisions of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and the income-tax act, 1961, or the numerous decisions thereon which have been rendered in different contexts. we do not propose to dwell upon the impact of the modifications effected by section ..... the period of delay in respect of which condensation can be granted is limited in some way or the other. it is, thereforee, clear that under the scheme of the income-tax act, the question of condensation of delay has to be decided in the light of the express provisions contained in the section itself and not on general principles incorporated in the ..... this issue should be based entirely on the interpretation to be placed on the provisions of section 269g(l) in the context and the scheme of various provisions of the income-tax act, 1961. in our view, it is not necessary to travel over the wider issues that were raised by the counsel for the appellant. we do not, thereforee, propose to deal ..... seek the condensation of delay in the filing of the appeal.22. sri saharya, thereforee, submitted that there is nothing in the language of any of the provisions of the income-tax act, and more particularly in the language of sections 269g and 269h, which precludes the assessed from seeking condensation of delay where the appeal could not be filed within the specified .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-06-1985
Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Ker)51; 164ITR134(Ker)
..... . it is clear that the 4th c. f. plant installed in the accounting year cannot be considered as a new industrial undertaking eligible for relief under section 80j of the income-tax act.'the assessment order was under challenge before the appellate assistant commissioner. the appellate assistant commissioner found that inasmuch as the 'c. f. plant no. iv' is capable of being ..... c. f. plant no. iv. since this is a new undertaking established by the assessee in the accounting year, the assessee company claimed relief under section 80j of the income-tax act, for short, the act, calculated at 6% of rs. 1,12,50,113, the capital employed by the company to establish this undertaking.5. the assessing authority, however, rejected the above ..... :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal is right in law in holding that the provision for gratuity made by ..... , j.1. the questions arise out of the same order of the income-tax appellate tribunal, cochin bench, for short, the appellate tribunal (annexure c). the facts are : disposing of o.p. no. 4733 of 1977-l filed by the commissioner of income-tax, kerala-i, ernakulam, this court directed the income-tax appellate tribunal, cochin bench, to refer the following question for our opinion .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-11-1985
Reported in : 162ITR300(Ker)
..... (i) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lease rent paid by the applicant is an allowable deduction under section 5(j) of the agrl. income-tax act ? (ii) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commissioner was justified in holding that no rent was payable by the assessee after april 1, 1970 ..... found that that was a sum with respect to which the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 5(j) of the agricultural income-tax act, 1950, which reads as follows ;' 5. computation of agricultural income.--the agricultural income of a person shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :--... (j) any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal ..... capital expenditure and which was not an expenditure deductible under section 5(j) of the agricultural income-tax act.5. counsel for the revenue drew our attention to the provisions contained in section 5(b) of the agricultural income-tax act, which reads as follows:' 5. computation of agricultural income.--the agricultural income of a person shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :--... (b) any ..... the landlord or superior landlord, as the case may be, in respect of land, from which the agricultural income is derived. ' 6. according to him, the very fact that deduction was not claimed under section 5(b) of the agricultural income-tax act is indicative of the fact that the payment was not made by way of rent, but only as an .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-26-1985
Reported in : (1986)51CTR(Ker)122; 161ITR729(Ker)
..... purchases and invoices and other relevant evidence on record correctly ? 2. whether the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35b of the income-tax act, 1961 ?' 2. annexure a is the copy of the assessment order of the income-tax officer dated december 23, 1974. annexures b and c are, respectively, the order and the decision of the appellate assistant commissioner and the ..... the business of export of canned and processed shrimps. for the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee has claimed weighted deduction of rs. 11,832 under section 35b of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act'), it being one-third of rs. 35,495 paid by way of commission to a foreign agent for the promotion of business. the ..... is whether the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35b of the act with respect to the payment alleged to have been made. there is no case for the revenue that the payment of rs. 35,495 had not been made by the assessee. the income-tax officer declined to accept the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction on two ..... the ambit of any of the clauses in section 35b of the act for entitlement to weighted deduction. we are also not persuaded to accept the contention that the tribunal was under a legal obligation to make a further enquiry in the matter or remand the matter to the income-tax officer for the purpose.7. the result, therefore, is that we answer .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-28-1985
Reported in : 160ITR339(Ker)
..... the expenditure incurred for levelling the football ground was an allowable expenditure in terms of section 5(j) of the kerala agricultural income-tax act, 1950.4. referring to section 37(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the bombay high court held (at p. 747):'if land has been levelled and could be used as a playground ..... of rs. 3,035.31 relating to cash in transit insurance and cash in safe insurance as items deductible under section 5(j) of the kerala agricultural income-tax act, 1950 ?' 2. question no. 2 which has been referred at the instance of the revenue has, in the light of the decision in i.t. ..... assessee as being incidental to the activities of the assessee company.'5. section 37(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, which was considered in the bombay case is much wider in scope than section 5(j) of the kerala agricultural income-tax act, 1950. section 5(j) reads:'5. (j) any expenditure (not being in the nature ..... of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of deriving the agricultural income.'6. in order to come within section 5 ..... rs. 9,116.66 and rs. 1,838.66 as levelling expenses to make a football ground was disallowed by the income-tax officer whose decision was confirmed in appeal by both the authorities. relying upon the decision of the bombay high court in teksons p. ltd. v .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-06-1985
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Ker)19; 160ITR872(Ker)
..... years in the present petition. we are, indeed, appreciative of the very learned arguments advanced by shri shenoy.4. we shall consider the scope of section 256(2) of the income-tax act for the purpose of this case.5. section 256(2) reads thus :'if, on an application made under sub-section (1), the appellate tribunal refuses to state the case on ..... bhaskaran nambtar, j.1. the state bank of travancore has filed this application under section 256(2) of the income-tax act for compelling the appellate tribunal to refer a question of law to this court after the tribunal refused to refer the question. this application relates to the assessment year 1977- ..... phraseology in the 1922 act and later in section 256(2) of the present act and relied on the decisions of the madras high court in cwt v ..... in state bank of travancore v. cit : 110itr336(ker) and appeals are pending before the supreme court. it cannot, therefore, be concluded that no question of law arises. he traced the legislative history of section 256(2) of the act, invited our attention to the provisions of the 1918 act, the report of the all india income-tax committee necessitating the change in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-12-1985
Reported in : 159ITR519(Ker)
..... the employee would be deemed to be a businessloss, in order to obtain the benefit of carry forward under section 72(1)(i)of the income-tax act, 1961, two conditions are to be fulfilled : (1) the set-off sought should be against the profits and gains of any business or ..... debt, that being the amount due from the judgment-debtor in their appropriation case. the income-tax officer rejected the claimbthat the requirements of section 36(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, were not satisfied. the income-tax officer also held that the deduction claimed by the assessee could not be allowed under section 37 ..... of the act. annexure 'a' is the copy of the order of the assessing authority dated ..... the business or profession for which the loss was originally computedcontinued to be carried on by him in the previous year relevant for thatassessment year. the income-tax appellate tribunal, in a brief order,annexure 'e', points out: 'the loss, if any, is in the business of banking. now, it carries ..... 36(2) of the act, it being a loss sustained by the assessee in the course of the carrying on of the business, the deduction could be allowed. aggrieved by the decision of the appellate assistant commissioner, the revenue filed an appeal to the income-tax appellate tribunal, cochin bench, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-02-1985
Reported in : 158ITR211(Ker)
..... disputed. therefore, the only question to be considered is whether vacancy allowance is allowable or not and that brings me to the provisions of section 24(1)(ix) of the income-tax act. since the cochin bench, in its order referred to above, had already interpreted that provision and i have gone through the reasonings expressed by the bench in that order and ..... right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to vacancy allowance under section 24(1)(ix) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?'section 24(1)(ix) of the act provides as follows :'24. deductions from income from house property.--(1) income chargeable under the head 'income from house property' shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be computed after making the following deductions ..... property let out and claiming vacancy allowance for the period the property remained vacant. the income-tax officer accepted the loss and completed the assessment. a copy of the assessment order is annexure c. the commissioner of income-tax interferred with the assessment order under section 263 of the income-tax act. as far as part of the property which was vacant throughout the year was concerned ..... , the commissioner held that the reasons given for the year 1970-71 held good and no vacancy allowance could be allowed and, as such, the full letting value of the portion had to be brought to tax. the commissioner was also .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-15-1985
Reported in : (1986)51CTR(Ker)160; 157ITR658(Ker)
..... rs. 61,754 was computed to be carried forward, under three heads :rs.(i)unabsorbed depreciation21,815(ii)unabsorbed development rebate17,186(iii)business loss22,7534. the income-tax officer, relying on section 79 of the income-tax act, refused the relief of carry forward of any of these 'losses'. on appeal, the appellate assistant commissioner held that development rebate and unabsorbed depreciation could be ..... year or years in which the loss was incurred; or (b) the income-tax officer is satisfied that the change in the shareholding was not effected with a view to avoiding or reducing any liability to tax.' 8. chapter vi of the income-tax act, as the heading denotes, relates to 'aggregation of income and set off or carry forward of loss '. set off of loss from ..... one source against income from another source under the same head of income is provided in section 70, while set off of loss from ..... one head against income from another is provided in section 71. business losses are .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-03-1985
Reported in : 157ITR711(Ker)
..... before which the matter came up for hearing at the first instance. the question of law referred to this court by the income-tax appellate tribunal, cochin bench, under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, pursuant to the direction by this court in the judgment dated february 28, 1978, in o. p. nos ..... : 53itr151(sc) and ramanathan chettiar v. cit : 63itr458(sc) , the land acquisition interest of rs. 80,253 included by the income-tax officer under section 5(l)(b) of the income-tax act, 1961, in the total income for 1968-69 assessment, accrued de die in ..... commissioner should not have deleted the interest amount in that assessment year. the tribunal for reasons stated in its order upheld the view of the income-tax officer and sustained the assessment for the assessment year 1968-69. it, therefore, dismissed the departmental appeal as well as the cross-objection of ..... similarly included on accrual basis under section 5(l)(b) of the i.t. act, 1961, in the income for the six assessment years from 1962-63 to 1967-68 inclusive, as had already been done by the income-tax officer by his orders dated june 6, 1972, for the 1967-68 and 1969- ..... . 4770 and 4772 of 1975, reads as follows ;' whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as per the ratio of the supreme court decisions in shamlal narula v. cit .....Tag this Judgment!