Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1991; (1993)111CTR(SC)370; [1993]201ITR611(SC); JT1993(2)SC664; 1993(2)SCALE408; 1993Supp(3)SCC389; [1993]2SCR938
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. These appeals are preferred against the orders of the Settlement Commission dated March 31, 1989 in pursuance of the offers of settlement made by the appellant. Civil Appeals 1301-07 of 1991 relate to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1970-71 while Civil Appeals 1288-1300 of 1991 relate to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1982-83. Under its orders, the Settlement Commission computed the taxable income of the appellant's father (who died on August 22, 1969) and of the appellant for the aforesaid assessment years and gave certain directions, applying which the I.T.O. was directed to compute the total income for each of the said assessment years and raise demand for the tax due. The main issue in all these matters is the assessability of income from five foreign trusts created by the appellant's father, Sri Vikramsinhji.2. Sri Vikramsinhji, Ex-ruler of Gondal executed three deeds of settlements (trusts deeds) in the United States of America on December 19,1963 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)41; AIR1998SC1891; [1998]231ITR745(SC); JT1998(3)SC690; RLW1998(2)SC328; 1998(3)SCALE406; (1998)5SCC77; [1998]3SCR139
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The appellants before us preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi seeking for a direction to extend the benefit of waiver of penalty arising under Section 271 (4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Pursuant to a scheme, the second appellant, Firm made an application on February 12, 1965 stating that they would place before the Income Tax Officer a true statement of their financial assets, transactions and they were prepared to file a statement of the affairs as on March 31, 1965. The statement of affairs filed on 20th May, 1965 disclosed an income of about Rs. 28,000,00 as the total accretion to its wealth over the eight years upto March 31, 1965, ultimately after some negotiations between the Department officials and the appellants, the appellants agreed to be assessed at Rs. 66,56,000 subject to the usual allowance for depreciation etc. spread over eight assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3942; (2003)179CTR(SC)362; (2003)2MLJ65(SC); (2003)3SCC57; [2002]SUPP5SCR387
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. A question of seminal importance relating to the period for whichinterest in terms of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') can be levied when the Settlement Commission (in short 'theCommission') passes an order under Section 245D of the Act, is the subject matter of adjudication in these appeals. These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Special Bench of the Commission (in Gulraj Engineering Construction Co. In re and Ors. : [1995]215ITR1(Bom) which dealt with five situations where such questions may arise. The situations according to the Special Bench are as follows:'(i) The income is determined under Section 143(1)but no regular assessment under Section 143(3) or 144is made with or without there being a notice under Section 143(2) and/or Section 142(1).(ii) A regular assessment is made under Section143(3) or Section 144 in addition to the determination of the income under Section 143(1) and an appeal ispending before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2007)210CTR(SC)228; [2007]291ITR519(SC); 2007(8)SCALE256; (2007)6SCC329
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Appellant herein is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. It is an HUF. For the assessment year 1998-99, an income of Rs. 30,80,030/- was declared by it, inter alia, showing a long term capital loss of Rs. 34,12,000/-. The said capital loss was said to have arisen on account of sale of property being land and building known as 'Jekison Niwas', 220 Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai. Admittedly, the Appellant had 1/4th share therein. It entered into an agreement for sale of undivided 1/4th share in the said property for a sum of Rs. 8 crores with one M/s Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. For the purpose of valuation of the said property, one Shri U.D. Chande, a registered valuer, was appointed. On 01.04.1981, the value of the said 1/4th share in the property was determined at Rs. 2,52,00,000/-. In the said valuation report, it was stated that the purpose was valuation for computation of capital gains. The report was filed in the prescribed form. All the required particu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC868; (1999)152CTR(SC)383; [1999]236ITR480(SC); JT1999(1)SC300; 1999(1)SCALE307; (1999)2SCC758; [1999]1SCR454
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. These appeals, by certificate, impugn the correctness of the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi. The question is whether the additional period of 180 days given by Explanation 1(iv) of Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available when the assessment or reassessment is made under Section 147.2. We are concerned with assessments/reassessments made under Section 147. In one set of appeals the Assessment Year involved is 1947-48. The notice under Section 148 was issued on 24th March, 1964. Subsequent proceedings were stayed by the High Court on 29th May, 1964, the order of stay being made on a writ petition filed by the assessee. The writ petition was dismissed, and the stay vacated, on 17th May, 1974. The draft order under Section 144B was made on 10th March, 1978 and the final order of assessment was made on 14th September, 1978. Assuming that the extended period of limitation of 180 days aforementioned was not available to the Reven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1962]44ITR708(SC); [1962]Supp2SCR594
Kapur, J.1. This is a petition by the assessee under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of the second proviso to s. 10(2)(vi-b) of Income tax Act introduced by The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act (28 of 1960). The relevant section with the proviso is as follows :-S. 10(1) 'The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation' in respect of the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him. (2) Such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances, namely : ...................................................................................................................................... (vi-b) in respect of machinery or plant being new, which has been installed after the 31st day of March, 1954, and which is wholly used for the purposes of the business carried on by the assessee, a sum by way of development rebate in respect of the year of installatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1729; (1981)24CTR(SC)351; [1981]131ITR435(SC); (1981)4SCC121; [1982]1SCR309; 1981(13)LC708(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These appeals by special leave raise a common question of law relating to the determination of annual value of a building for the purpose of chargeability to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the building is governed by the provisions of the Rent Control legislation but the standard rent has not yet been fixed. The facts giving rise to these appeals are few and may be briefly stated as follows: The assessee constructed a warehouse in Delhi some time in 1961 at a total cost of Rs. 4,13,000/-. The warehouse consisted of two portions on the ground floor, one on the north and the other on the south and also a mezzanine floor and a first floor. On 19th March, 1962, the assessee let out the whole of the first floor to the American Embassy at the rent of Rs. 5810/- per month and subsequently on 1st April, 1964 she let out the northern portion of the ground floor together with the mezzanine floor to the same tenant at the rent of Rs. 6907/- per month and on 7th Decem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1445; JT1993(2)SC220; 1993(1)SCALE692; 1993Supp(3)SCC39; [1993]90STC103(SC)
ORDERKudip Singh, J.1. This appeal, by way of Certificate granted by the High Court, relates to the interpretation of Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (the Act) as it existed at the relevant time. Section 22 of the Act was as under:The assessing, appellate or revising authority may at any time within three years from the -date of any order passed by him rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record of appeal, revision, assessment or refund as the case may be.2. The revising authority under the Act dismissed the revision petition of the assessee by an order dated April 17, 1969. The assessee moved an application under Section 22 of the Act for the rectification of the said order. The application was allowed and the revising authority by its order dated August 13, 1969 rectified the order dated April 17, 1969 and instead of dismissing the revision petition of the assessee it allowed the same.3. Taking advantage of the U.P. Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 1972 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2702; (2003)182CTR(SC)489; [2003]262ITR407(SC); JT2003(5)SC384; 2003(5)SCALE122; (2003)6SCC342
Ruma Pal, J.1. The assessee built a house in a suburb of Kolkata between the years 1981 to 1983. She filed a return in respect of the assessment year 1982-1983 in which she disclosed that she had invested an amount of Rs. 1,75,000 in the construction of the house. The return was accepted by the Income Tax Officer (now known as the Assessing Officer). In respect of the subsequent assessment year, namely 1983-84, the assessee disclosed that she had invested a further amount of Rs. 1,70,000 in the construction of the house. This was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, who referred the question of the construction cost of the house to the Valuation Officer under Section 55(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Valuation Officer submitted a report to the Assessing Officer. On the basis of the report, the Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment in respect of the assessment year 1982-83. The Income Tax Officer than made an addition of Rs. 2,79,000 in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2291; JT1994(3)SC239; 1994(2)SCALE547; 1994Supp(2)SCC59; [1994]3SCR417; [1994]95STC170(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted in the Special leave Petition.2. In Goodyear India Limited v. State of Haryana : [1991]188ITR402(SC) , a Bench of this Court comprising Sabyasachi Mukharji and S. Ranganathan, JJ. declared Section 9(1)(b) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act,' 1973 ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature insofar as it imposed a tax on the despatch of goods outside the territory of the State. It was held that 'the tax and despatch of goods outside the territory of the State certainly is in the course of inter-state trade or commerce and, in other words, amounts to imposition of consignment tax' Section 9(1)(b) levied purchase tax on goods purchased by a dealer who used them in the manufacture of other goods and disposed of such manufactured goods to a place outside the place in any manner otherwise than by way of sale in the course of inter-state trade or commerce or in the course of export outside the territory of India within the meaning of Sub-sectio...
Tag this Judgment!