Reported in : [2004]268ITR500(Raj)
1. on an application filed under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the tribunal has referred the following question :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the appellate tribunal erred in law in setting aside the masters to the assessing officer with the directions that no disallowances were to be made under section 43b of the income-tax act, 1961, of rs. 6,570/-rs. 5,303/- rs. 24,672/- rs. 13,459 if such payments had been made on or before the due date applicable for furnishing of return of income under section 139(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?'2. the assessees are registered firms. the income-tax officer found that the assessee had collected sales tax from the customers during the relevant assessment years, which were not deposited during the accounting year in question and, therefore, the claim of deduction of sales tax paid after the accounting year though during the grace period has been disallowed by the assessing officer. in appeal before the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) has allowed the appeal holding that if the sales tax has been paid during the grace period, that does not attract the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2004]269ITR52(Raj)
.....under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the loan accounts of the minors in the books of the firm, m/s. ratnalaya, will not lose its character and will not partake of the character of capital account by virtue of the fact that the share incomes of the minors were credited to their loan account ?'2. the partnership firm styled as m/s. ratnalaya started vide partnership deed dated july 31, 1968, and it was constituted by the two major partners, namely, smt. kanchan devi golecha and shri satish chandra bothra. two minors, master pankaj kumar and peeyush kumar, were admitted in the partnership to the benefits of the partnership. these minors are sons of the assessee. shri peeyush kumar golecha, according to the assessee, deposited a sum of rs. 5,000 on october 15, 1968, and a sum of rs. 10,000 on march 14, 1969, with the firm. similarly, pankaj kumar is said to have been deposited a sum of rs. 14,000 on october 15, 1968, with the firm. interest was paid to the minors on this count and that was.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2002]123TAXMAN596(Raj)
.....section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act), the tribunal has referred the following question :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the appellate tribunal erred in law in setting aside the matters to the assessing officer with directions that no disallowances were to be made under section 43b of the income tax act, 1961 of rs. 6,570/rs. 5,303/rs. 24,672/rs. 13,459 if such payments had been made on or before the due date applicable for furnishing of return of income under section 139(1) of the income tax act, 1961 ?'2. the assessees are registered firms. the income tax officer found that the assessee had collected sales tax from the customers during the relevant assessment years, which were not deposited during the accounting year in question and, therefore, the claim of deduction of sales tax paid after the accounting year though during grace period has been disallowed by the assessing officer. in appeal before the commissioner (appeals), the commissioner (appeals) has allowed the appeal holding that if the sales tax has been paid during the grace period, that does not attract the provisions of section 43b of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2002)175CTR(Raj)532
.....if it is so in case the tribunal decides the case against the petitioner. he will have a further remedy under section 260a of the income tax act before this court. it is submitted by mr. johari that in the instant writ petition he has challenged the validity of the proviso to section 234c(1) of the act of 1961, and as such it is expedient that the entire matter on merit is also heard by this court. we are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. on the contrary the petitioner can challenge the validity of the proviso to section 234(c)(1) of the act after the decision of the tribunal. consequently we feel that there is no purpose of keeping this writ petition pending. we dismiss this writ petition without prejudice for the rights and contention of the petitioner on merit of the case as well as the challenge to the proviso to section 234c(1) of the act of 1961. the challenge to the validity of the said provision is kept open. it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the same after the decision of the tribunal if so advised.open
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2002]255ITR118(Mad)
.....act was due to be filed on june 30, 1984, the same was filed on march 24, 1986. hence, action was initiated by the assessing officer under section 18(1)(a) of the act and while completing the assessment proceedings, a penalty of rs. 62,360 was ordered. the assessee was aggrieved and preferred the appeal before the commissioner of wealth-tax (appeals), who while upholding the penalty, remitted the matter to the assessing officer to revise the quantum of penalty with reference to the net wealth after making a fresh assessment as per the directions of the tribunal in w. t. a. no. 797 (mds.) of 1989, dated may 18, 1990. the revenue therefore carried the matter to the tribunal and the tribunal confirmed the order of the commissioner of wealth-tax (appeals), whereby the commissioner of wealth-tax (appeals) had upheld the levy of penalty and the remittance only for the quantum in pursuance of the fresh assessment framed.3. we were taken through the order of the tribunal, wherein the tribunal has categorically held that while dealing with the quantum appeal relating to the assessment year 1984-85, the tribunal in its order dated may 18, 1990, had observed that the unquoted.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : I(2003)DMC323
.....the accused in order to find out whether they are correct or not.12. before dealing with the same, it would be worthwhile to refer to the various facts, which led to the acquittal. let us refer to them at the outset:(1) p.w.1 lakpath raj staying along with his wife p.w.8 and children is doing business at hassan in karnataka state. he has got three sons and three daughters. prabhat kumari, the deceased is the eldest daughter aged about 20 years. they originally hail from rajasthan state. in january 1985, they went to checkpettia in rajasthan to attend the marriage function of one yeesula, who is related to p.w.8, the wife of p.w.1. the accused 1 and 2 are the husband and wife residing in kanchipuram. they also hail from rajasthan. a3 is their son. a1 to a3 came to checkpettia in order to attend the very same function. after the function was over, a proposal was mooted to give prabhat kumari, the deceased in marriage to a3. when the talks were going in the presence of elders in checkpettia, the accused persons demanded 8 kilos of silver, 3/4 kilo of gold and a cash of rs.75,000/- as sridhana. p.w.1 was prepared to give 1/2 kilo gold, 6 kilos silver and a cash of rs.55,000/-......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2002]256ITR113(Mad)
.....as opening stock should beincreased by rs. 40,800 to bring it on par with the amount of valuation of the closing stock of the dissolved firm ?'the facts are that the assessee which was a partnership firm was assessed for the assessment year 1982-83 for which the accounting year was from december 1, 1982, to april 12, 1982 (sic). the assessee had declared a total income of rs. 36,817 in its return filed on february 26, 1983, and the assessing officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of a total income of rs. 35,850 by his assessment order dated january 30, 1985, in the status of an unregistered firm. it had so happened that one of the partners had expired on january 31, 1982, and, therefore, the firm itself had been dissolved. thereafter the new firm was formed with the wife of the erstwhile expired partner having been taken up as a partner of the firm. when the closing stock of the erstwhile firm was assessed, the sum of rs. 40,800 was added to it. this was while assessing the value of the closing stock as on january 31, 1982, when a partner died and the firm got dissolved. however, when the firm was assessed thereafter, this enhanced value of rs. 40,800 was.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2004]268ITR377(Mad)
.....the assessee was only purchasing goods from china and selling the same in usa and no export of indian goods was carried on ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that the interest received by the assessee from the fixed deposit of surplus funds should be assessed under the head 'business' ?'2. we shall take the first question first. the tribunal has held in favour of the assessee on the basis of its earlier orders for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. the case of the department is, however, that the assessee is not exporting any goods and admittedly the goods are being purchased in china and sold in u.s.a. and, therefore, if the goods are not being exported ex-india, the benefits under section 35b would not be available. the question is no more res integra. the supreme court in the decision reported in cit v. bombay burmah trading corporation [2000] 242 itr 298 has observed (page 301) :'the tribunal's reading of the section that the export should be ex-india is not supported by the language of the provision or any authority. the high court has, therefore, rightly concluded that to avail of the benefit of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2002]257ITR39(Mad)
.....not appear to deny that the contribution in the instant case amounting to rs. 55,84,754 is positively towards the approved gratuity fund. on the facts the contribution cannot be linked to any other fund or scheme. even the lic has received the payment by way of premium for the policy issued under its group life assurance scheme for the benefit of the employees of the textool company ltd.'5. on these findings, ultimately, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), relying on the supreme court judgment in cit v. j.h. gotla came to the conclusion that the credit had to be given to the assessee for the aforementioned amount. the appellate tribunal also went on to endorse this view.6. in our opinion, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) as well as thetribunal have correctly held that merely because the payments were madedirectly to the lic, the company could not be denied the benefit under section 36(1)(v) and the amount had to be credited in favour of the assessee. both thecommissioner (appeals) as well as the tribunal have correctly read the lawand have correctly relied upon the aforementioned supreme court judgment.in our opinion, since the finding of fact is that all the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2002)176CTR(Mad)112
orderv.s. sirpurkar,j.two questions are referred to us. they are : 1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35b on foreign travel, advertisement, foreign branch expenses, etc, though the assessee was only purchasing goods from china and selling the same in usa and no export of indian goods was carried on?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that the interest received by the assessee from the fixed deposit of surplus funds should be assessed under the head 'business 2. we shall take the first question first. the tribunal has held in favour of the assessee on the basis of its earlier orders for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. the case of the department is, however, that the assessee is not exporting any goods and admittedly the goods are being purchased in china and sold in u.s.a. and, therefore, if the goods are not being exported ex-india, the benefits under section 35b would not be available. the question is no more res integra. the supreme court in the decision reported as cit v......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT