Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-17-1988
Reported in : (1988)71CTR(Kar)166; ILR1988KAR2012; 175ITR220(KAR); 175ITR220(Karn); 1988(3)KarLJ460
..... 1956-57, the assessee claimed deduction of these two amounts of rs. 22,332 and rs. 50,000 as deductible expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. the income-tax officer disallowed the claim for deduction on the ground that the expenditure incurred was of capital nature and was not allowable as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv ..... balakrishna, j.1. in these three references which have been made under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act'), the following questions of law arise for consideration : 2. at instance of the assessee : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in ..... and commissioning expenses should be treated as revenue expenditure (4) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the income-tax officer was not justified in restricting the relief under section 80j on pro rata basis ?' 4. i shall, at first, answer the four questions referred at the instance of the ..... ]106itr900(sc) , is apposite to the facts of these cases and that the expenditure incurred was capital in nature. thus, the tribunal upheld the orders of the commissioner of income-tax. 8. the circumstances which necessitated the construction of the road could be gathered from the proceedings of the board meeting of hindustan machine tools, dated july 24, 1970, vide annexure- .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-01-1988
Reported in : (1989)79CTR(P& H)183; 180ITR180(P& H)
..... assistant commissioner but, on further appeal to the income-tax appellate tribunal, amritsar, he succeeded. at the instance of the revenue, the tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:'(1) whether, on the ..... on his one-fourth share of the income received from the partnership firm. the income-tax officer took the view that the assessee, his wife and two minor sons constituted a sub-partnership and included the whole of the income received from the partnership firm in his hands by applying the provisions of section 183(b) of the income-tax act, 1961. he failed before the appellate ..... in thehands of the assessee. in that eventuality, it had to be assessed in thehands of the hindu undivided family. under the circumstances, it has to bedeemed that the income-tax officer accepted the partial partition and oncethat is so, the argument raised before us on behalf of the revenue has tobe rejected.4. for the reasons recorded above, we answer ..... partition deed of the hindu undivided family, overriding title was created in favour of the wife and minorsons, the question of including their share income in the income of theassessee could not arise in view of our decision in income-tax referencesnos. 80 and 81 of 1980 (ito v. narinder kumar , decided on november 28, 1988). learned counsel for the revenueurged that the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-29-1988
Reported in : 177ITR230(Delhi)
..... g.c. jain, j.1. the commissioner of income-tax, delhi,-v, has filed this petition under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the act'), for directing the income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi bench, delhi, to state a case and refer the following purported questions of law to this court for its opinion: '(1) whether, on the facts and in ..... the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal is right in law in ..... 1986, accepted the appeal of the assessed and deleted the addition originally made by the inspecting assistant commissioner (assessment). 5. feeling aggrieved, the commissioner of income-tax made an application under section 256(1) of the act before the tribunal for refereeing the said purported questions of law to this court for reference. this was declined by the tribunal on april 21, 1987 ..... he made an addition of rs. 6,70,493 under section 69a of the act and further enhanced the profit by 5% on the alleged sales to the said three firms amounting to rs. 33,525. 3. feeling aggrieved, the assessed filed an appeal before the commissioner of income-tax (appeals). it was held that there was not sufficient material before the inspecting .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-18-1988
Reported in : (1987)63CTR(Del)380; 175ITR78(Delhi)
..... arun b. saharya, j.1. these are five applications under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the act'), by the commissioner of income-tax praying that we direct the income-tax appellate tribunal (delhi bench) to draw up a statement of the case and refer it for our opinion on ..... madras high court in : 121itr854(mad) (sic) (iii) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was correct in law in allowing the liability towards additional excise duty on account of excess wastage on spirit in transit to the extent of ..... wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessed's business (ii) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was correct in law in allowing the liability of rs. 93,080 as an allowable expenditure keeping in view the decision of the ..... expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of business (ii) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was correct in law in allowing the liability on account of additional excise duty to the extent of rs. 27,86,288 as ..... the following questions raised in each of the five applications, in respect of the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 : 'income-tax .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-16-1988
Reported in : 176ITR393(Mad)
..... c.j.1. at the instance of the revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transaction of the assessee of purchasing ..... his own family or to rent it out to third parties. on the basis of the materials before him, the income-tax officer concluded that the assessee's conduct of demolishing the building, converting the entire area into house sites leaving space for roads and subsequently selling ..... the condition of the building was not habitable and the assessee also could not have realised any rent from letting out the building. the income-tax officer further noticed that the assessee did not take any step to renovate the building to make it suitable for living by the members of ..... the advertisement also offered the property for lease. before the income-tax officer, the assessee contended that the property was purchased as an investment either to be used by his family members who were in india or, ..... stand and contended that the entire realisation from the sale of plots represented capital receipt assessable to capital gains in the respective assessment years. the income-tax officer, while examining the claim of the assessee, found that the assessee had advertised for the sale of the property in the year 1964, though .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-10-1988
Reported in : (1988)69CTR(Mad)18; 171ITR447(Mad)
..... m.n. chandurkar, c.j.1. the question which has been referred under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue, reads as follows : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ..... by him for his residence, he received presents from his relatives, friends and well-wishers amounting to rs. 19,244. this amount was assessed as income by the income-tax officer. the amount was, however, deleted by the appellate assistant commissioner and the order of the appellate assistant commissioner was confirmed by the tribunal. ..... 400, ranging between rs. 5 to rs. 500 and the contributions came from different strata of society, castes and individuals. the assessment made by the income-tax officer was confirmed by the appellate assistant commissioner and by the tribunal. this court held that as the assessee was being remunerated separately for his discourses ..... cricketer was a donation or a gift and was not an employment or profit arising from the assessee's employment and was consequently not assessable to income-tax. the commissioners took the view that the amount was a donation or gift. the view of the commissioners was affirmed by rowlatt j. but his ..... as professional income and brought it to tax. 4. the appellate assistant commissioner held the payment to be by way of a testimonial and personal gift and not taxable. he recorded an alternative finding that even if it is regarded as income, it would be exempt under section 10(3) of the act being casual .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-11-1988
Reported in : 175ITR93(Mad)
..... year 1969-70 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in cancelling the order of the commissioner of income-tax under section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961f, for the assessment year 1967-68 3. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that ..... , 1966, which is described as a deed of dissolution. 5. all these questions have been referred in accordance with the directions of this court under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961. 6. the assessee is a partnership firm which was originally constituted under an instrument of partnership deed dated april 1, 1962. the construction company which has been referred to ..... disallowed the deduction treating the payment as capital expenditure. in respect of the order of the income-tax officer for the assessement years 1967-68 and 1968-69, the commissioner exercised his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961, and set aside the deduction. 9. in respect of the assessment year 1969-70, in the appeal filed by the assessee, its ..... the payment of rs. 50,000 made by the assessee to pioneer construction company, vijayawada, under the 'dissolution deed' dated january 1, 1966, was allowable as deduction in computing the income of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jun-16-1988
..... against the assessee with the above qualification.9. the next question is regarding levy of penalty under sections 271(1)(a) and 273 of the income-tax act. the order of the additional commissioner of income-tax shows that the income-tax officer has not initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1 )(a) and 273 and, therefore, assessments are held vitiated. we experience no hesitation in not ..... non-charging of interest leviable under section 139 for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1967-68 and 1968-69 as also of interest under section 217 of the income-tax act, 1961, for all the seven assessment years. all the assessments are, therefore, set aside with a direction that penalty proceedings should be initiated as directed in respect of the relevant ..... income-tax under section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961, to the extent of charging of interest under section 139 and section 217 of the income-tax act, 1961, relating to the assessment years involved in the various appeals ? (2) whether, on the facts and in the ..... cases. therefore, we propose to dispose of all the cases in one order.a. the following two questions have been referred under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the income-tax act, 1961 : '(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in upholding the orders of the additional commissioner of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-08-1988
Reported in : 177ITR443(Bom); 1989MhLJ118
..... question:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of section 32(1)(ii) read with section 34(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the income-tax officer had bay power or jurisdiction to ascertain and impose the depreciation allowance upon the assessee ?'2. the reference relates to the assessment year 1969-70. the previous year ..... depreciation in the year or years of its choice or not to claim it at all and whether the income-tax officer was entitled to force depreciation on an unwilling assessee ?'5. income-tax reference no. 126 of 1976 arises in the context of the indian income-tax act, 1922, being concerned with the assessment year 1955-56. it is enough to mention that the assessee did ..... was in error, but held that an appeal did not lie. the assessee carried the matter to the income-tax appellate tribunal which allowed the appeal.6. sub-section (1) of section 10 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, deals with the tax payable by an assessee in respect of the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him. sub ..... not claim depreciation on its buildings, godowns and machinery for the year under assessment and did not file the prescribed particulars, the income-tax officer, however, allowed the assessee a deduction on account of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-05-1988
Reported in : (1988)74CTR(Bom)56; 176ITR515(Bom)
..... . firstly, it was contended that since there was no order before the commissioner which could have been said to have been made by the income-tax officer under section 217(1a), the commissioner had under section 263 of the income-tax act no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order levying interest under section 217(1a). secondly, it was urged that if the assessment order made ..... under section 210 by more than 33 1/3%. the assessee should have, therefore, sent to the income-tax officer under section 212(3a) of the income-tax act an estimate of the current income and of the advance tax payable by her (on the current income), as calculated in the manner laid down in section 209 and she should also have paid by way of advance ax ..... the income-tax officer to issue the consequential demand notice. the assessee, feeling aggrieved from the commissioner's order, took the matter in appeal ..... 217(1a) as aforesaid. the commissioner was of the opinion that this omission on the part of the income-tax officer was prejudicial to he interests of the revenue and was, to that extent, erroneous. he, therefore, assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the income-tax act and levied on the assessee under section 217(1a) interest amounting to rs. 1,251. he also directed .....Tag this Judgment!