|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 474 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 14 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court, Substantial Question of Law, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... s. Shakuntala Bhatia and order dated January 21, 1992, in I. T. A. No. 2701/Del. of 1990, for the assessment year 1980-81 in the case of Smt. Santosh Gupta. Having regard to the facts and material, we see no infirmity in the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the same are upheld. A perusal of the reasons assigned by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal shows that similar additions made by the Assessing Officer in other cases were deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and his orders were upheld by the Tribunal. It has not been shown to us that the orders passed by the Tribunal in similar cases are the subject-matter of any reference pending before this court or any appeal pending in the Supreme Court. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the A Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Tribunal. For the reasons mentioned above the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Weighted Deduction, Export Market Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... e other items are items in respect of which the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit and the Tribunal has erroneously held that the assessee is entitled to such benefits under section 35B for the salary paid to its employees engaged in export work, interest paid on post shipment credit, bank charges and on commission, all of which were items of expenditure incurred in India. The first question is answered accordingly. The second question is regarding the right of the assessee to raise a new ground in appeal. It is settled law that if such ground can be raised on the basis of the facts available, on the records, it is permissible to raise such a ground, with the leave of the Tribunal. The second question is therefore answered by holding that the new ground was rightly raised, but, that ground was not one which merited acceptance as the claim made was with respect to the interest paid to the bank on export bill discounted. The second question is answered accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 12 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Reference, Question of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ons of law referred read thus 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in holding that order under section 143(1)(a) passed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and thereby quashing the order under section 263 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that adjustments by way of disallowance of claim of expenses on incentive bonus and non-exempt portion of additional conveyance allowance, were outside the scope of section 143(1)(a) of the Act? We are of the opinion that the above questions of law do arise for consideration and, therefore, we direct that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application for reference. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to refer the above two questions of law for consideration by this court.
-
2000 (10) TMI 11 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Writ, Court Will Not Interfere ... ... ... ... ..... assessee that latitude. In Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO 1999 236 ITR 34, their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the notice issued for reassessment by observing that at that stage, the court can only consider whether there is a prima facie case for reassessment and reopening proceedings cannot be struck down by going into the sufficiency or correctness of the material relied upon by the assessing authority for the purpose of reopening. On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing of the notice, annexure P-3, and the letter, annexure P-10. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the petitioner free to file a return in pursuance of the impugned notice and raise all legal and factual objections against the initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the 1961 Act. We also make it clear that the observations made in this order shall not adversely affect the case of the petitioner.
-
2000 (10) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income, Capital or Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... he reimbursement of the purchase-tax as he referred to s. 41(1) of the IT Act, yet, while considering the scheme under which the subsidy was granted, it is clear that it is a production-oriented subsidy and not for the establishment of the factory. 9. Though I agree with Mr. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel that the reasonings given by the CIT may not be quite accurate, a fair reading of the scheme clearly shows that the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the CIT that the subsidy amount is a revenue receipt is sustainable in law and since his ultimate conclusion is correct, it is not necessary to remit the same to him to arrive at the same conclusion by a different process of reasonings. I, therefore, hold that the subsidy received by the petitioner was rightly held by the CIT as revenue receipt. Both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. However, in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 24864 and 24865 of 1990 are closed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 9 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Dividend, Expenditure on Stamp Papers, Not Deductible ... ... ... ... ..... s wholly or in part (in multiples of hundred) to another person/s has to execute the prescribed transfer form (annexure 7) with transferee/s and forward it to the Unit Trust of India for registration along with the relative unit certificate/ s . From this it can be seen that the registration has to be made in order to see that the transfer is completed. It is not merely for the purpose of getting the dividend that the registration is necessary. If the assessee has to become the holder of the units, the transfer has to be registered with the Unit Trust of India. If that be so, the amount spent for the purpose of registration is spent in connection with the acquisition of the unit. Hence, it can be said to be only a capital expenditure. In the above view of the matter, the questions referred are answered as follows Question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2000 (10) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Non-resident, Rate of Tax, Royalty, Fees For Technical Services ... ... ... ... ..... terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). No order as to costs. Prayer clauses (a) and (b) (a) That this court may be pleased to issue under article 226 of the Constitution of India an appropriate direction, under or writ including a writ in the nature of certiorari caning for the record of the case after, satisfying itself as to the legality thereof, quash and set aside the said order dated February 24, 1994 (exhibit E ). (b) That this court may be pleased to issue under article 226 of the Constitution of India an appropriate direction, order or writ including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to pass an order holding that the petitioner should deduct the tax at source at the rate of 20 per cent. from the lump sum consideration paid by the petitioner to Alcan under an agreement dated November 4, 1982, and issue No abjection certificate for allowing the petitioner to remit two instalments of Canadian 61,000-each to Alcan after paying tax at 20 per cent.
-
2000 (10) TMI 7 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Loss, Capital Loss Or Business Loss, Earnest Money ... ... ... ... ..... principle applicable in India is more or less the same. If there is a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductible, as, without the business operation and doing all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned. It is in that sense that from a commercial standard such a loss is considered to be a trading one and becomes deductible from the total income, although, in terms neither in the 1922 Act nor in the 1961 Act, there is a provision like section 51(1) of the Australian Act. In view of the conclusions of the Tribunal with reference to different clauses of the agreement dated February 27, 1967, the inevitable conclusion is that the amount in question was a capital loss, as held by the Revenue and not business loss as claimed by the assessee. The question, there fore, is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Carry Forward Of Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... aken the view that the obligation of computation of deficiency under section 80J in the year to which it pertains is not a condition precedent for allowing the carry forward of the said deficiency to the subsequent year and in the absence of clear provision such a condition cannot be read by implication. Deficiency referable to section 80J cannot be equated to computation of loss as to require computation as a condition for carrying it forward. The assessee, therefore, became entitled to avail of the benefit of carry forward and set off of section 80J deficiency in the year of profit even in the absence of computation thereof in the year of loss. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts in the decisions. In the result, question No. 2 is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of the partial success of this reference and as the assessee is not represented, we make no order as to costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 5 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arrears so far as payment of tax was concerned. There was no demand with regard to any tax which was unpaid and the said fact has not been disputed even by the learned advocate appearing for the respondents. In our opinion, there was no justifiable reason on the part of the respondent authorities in refusing issuance of the certificates under section 230A of the Act. Even as per the law laid down by this court in the case of Gopal Industrial Estate v. ITO 1980 123 ITR 727, as the petitioners were not liable to pay any tax at the relevant time, the respondent-authorities could not have denied issuance of the certificates under section 230A of the Act to the petitioners. In view of the facts stated hereinabove, the respondent-authorities are directed to issue the certificates under section 230A of the Act to the petitioners within a period of 15 days from today. The petitions are finally disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute in each petition with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 4 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essee, yet the quantum of proof to discharge it was that as required in a civil case, i.e., by preponderance of probabilities. This had been discharged by the assessee s producing regular books of account and that was enough evidence before the Tribunal to come to the view that the onus had been discharged. This also applied to the discrepancy in the stock statements . . . In view of the foregoing discussion it is held that penalty is not exigible on the facts of this case and penalty imposed is deleted. The Tribunal expressed its agreement with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by applying the ratio of the decision of this court in the case of Metal Products of India 1984 150 ITR 714. In our opinion, the concurrent view expressed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal represents the correct position of law and there is no valid ground to entertain the appeal which we hereby dismiss.
-
2000 (10) TMI 3 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , it follows as a natural corollary to the assessee s right to receive refund. There fore, the mere fact that the application filed by the petitioner was decided expeditiously cannot be made a ground for declining its prayer for award of interest. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated April 23, 1999, and December 6, 1999, passed by respondents Nos. 3 and 2 are declared illegal and quashed with the direction to the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner in terms of section 244A(1)(b) on the amount of tax deposited in pursuance of the order passed by respondent No. 3. Such interest shall be payable for the period between April 9, 1999 and April 23, 1999. The concerned authority is directed to pay the amount to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of submission/receipt of the certified copy of this order. The Registry is directed to issue certified copy dasti on payment of fee pre scribed for urgent applications.
-
2000 (10) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ll) and contended that the receipts were casual or non-recurring in nature. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, contended that the receipt had rightly been held to be taxable by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Reliance placed on RM. AR. AR. RM. AR. AR. Ramanathan Chettiar v. CIT 1967 63 ITR 458 (SC). The Departmental appeal was allowed and the assessee s cross-objection was dismissed. Accepting the prayer for reference, the questions have been referred for the opinion of this court. In spite of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. On a perusal of the quoted portion of the order, it is to be noted that the Tribunal with reference to the materials on record came to the conclusions about the taxability of the amounts in question. The conclusions are essentially factual and, in our opinion, no question of law arises out of the Tribunal s order. Therefore, we decline to answer the questions.
-
2000 (10) TMI 1 - SC ORDER
Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest under section 139(8)/215 levied in the original assessment does not survive when a reassessment is done under section 148 particularly in view of the apex court's decision reported in CIT v Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. - Matter referred to High Court to rehear the reference.
....
|
