Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 242 Records
-
1993 (4) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Donation To Flood Relief ... ... ... ... ..... of that section are fulfilled. It cannot get deduction under section 37(1) of the Act in respect thereof simply by contending that, as a prudent businessman, in its opinion, such donations might help its business in the long run. The opinion of the businessman is not binding on the taxing authorities. In fact, it is the taxing authorities who are to be satisfied that the payment meets the requirements of section 37(1) of the Act or not. While doing so, they should examine the facts from the businessman s point of view and not from the subjective standard of the Revenue. The theory of businessman s point of view cannot be carried any further. In view of the foregoing we are of the clear opinion that the payment of Rs. 75,000 made by the assessee in the instant case was not an admissible expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (4) TMI 21 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Agreement To Sell Property, Central Government, Proposed Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... question came up before the Karnataka High Court in Rajata Trust v. Chief CIT 1992 193 ITR 220 in which the said court held that no interest is created on the basis of agreement to sell in the proposed transferee and, therefore, the transferee cannot object to the purchase of the property by the Central Government under section 269UD(l) which is inserted in Chapter XX-C and, moreover, the agreement for sale specifically provided that if the property was acquired by the Central Government, the agreement would be treated as sale and it would be entitled to refund of the advance. The special leave petition filed against the aforesaid decision of the Karnataka High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court. We are in agreement with the aforesaid decision and, therefore, the instant petition is dismissed in limine, with the observation that the petitioner has no right to object to the purchase of the property by the Central Government under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act.
-
1993 (4) TMI 20 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Deduction Of Interest, Income Tax Act, Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment, Interest On Money Borrowed For Payment
-
1993 (4) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... herefore, the Income-tax Officer is required to determine expenditure which would qualify under section 35B and to grant weighted deduction accordingly. In view of these directions given by the Tribunal, we need not go into the contentions raised on behalf of the Department relating to whether the expenditure is incurred outside India or not or whether it falls under the other requirements of section 35B because these are yet to be examined. The question which is before us relates to whether the assessee is engaged in the business of providing technical know-how in the light of the definition of this term under section 80MM(2). Looking to the findings of fact given by the Tribunal relating to the nature of activities carried on by the assessee, in our view, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the assessee has carried on the business of imparting information concerning commercial knowledge, expertise or skill. In this view of the matter, we discharge the rule.
-
1993 (4) TMI 18 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
A Firm, Application For Registration, Firm Registration, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... had given the finding that the persons whose names did not find mention in the excise licence had not either handled the liquor or sold or dealt with the liquor and such a finding was not questioned by asking for a reference. Thus no referable questions of law arose and the petitions were declined. The contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that a presumption should be drawn that when a request for registration of the partnership is made on behalf of 14 persons it should be deemed that they had actually and physically handled and sold liquor. This contention cannot be accepted. Such a question depends upon the proof of fact as to whether the persons whose names do not find mention in the licence had actually and physically handled and sold liquor or not. In order to determine such a question of fact the Tribunal in the present case had remanded the matter. Hence no referable question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1993 (4) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Powers Of Tribunal, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... istake apparent or self-evident, but to review or revise or rewrite its own order. Rectification of mistake will not justify its anxiety to improve upon the earlier order. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order is bad for error of law apparent on the face of the record. We also hold that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order which was in the nature of review which the Tribunal could not have made under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. Counsel for the first respondent-assessee submits that any view which the court may hold may not preclude the assessee from pursuing the alternative statutory remedy of reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act. We make it clear that none of the observations in this judgment are meant in any manner to affect any right of the assessee to seek any other remedy which he has under the Income-tax Act. The assessee is free to Pursue the same. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.
-
1993 (4) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
A Partner, Article 14 Of The Constitution, Law Applicable, Legal Representative, Registered Firm, Search And Seizure, State Legislature, Unregistered Firm
-
1993 (4) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Delay In Filing Writ, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property, Writ Petition
-
1993 (4) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
A Partner, Article 14 Of The Constitution, Law Applicable, Legal Representative, Registered Firm, Search And Seizure, State Legislature, Unregistered Firm
-
1993 (4) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Advertisement Expenditure, Business Expenditure, Expenditure On Advertisement, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, Question Of Law
-
1993 (4) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... of assessment, that there was no loan as shown due and payable the Income-tax Officer was justified in holding the belief that by reason of omission and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully all necessary facts for his assessment for the assessment year 1983-84, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. There is a live link between the materials and the belief formed by the Income-tax Officer. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that there were materials before the Income-tax Officer for reopening the assessment. Since the Tribunal has remanded the matter for fresh disposal as regards the assessability of the sum of Rs. 60,000, any observation made in this judgment will not be taken to be our finding or conclusion on the merits of the assessment. We, therefore, answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY J.--I agree.
-
1993 (4) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Adequate Consideration, Assessment Notice, Deemed Gift, High Court, Market Value, Notice Of Reassessment, Reassessment Notice
-
1993 (4) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessable capital gain would be only Rs. 1,81,671 - computation of capital gains on transactions of sale of shares - held that deduction should be given only after loss is deducted from gain
-
1993 (4) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
Prizes were awarded to assessee - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the total sum of Rs. 22,000 received by the assessee from the Indian Oil Corporation and All India Highway Motor Rally should not be brought to tax - we hold that the receipt in question herein does constitute " income " as defined in clause (24) of section 2 of the Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the question referred by the Tribunal is answered in the negative
-
1993 (4) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Section 280ZC - real exporter - We are also not convinced with the alternative reasoning of the High Court that even if it is held that the title to the goods passed to the M.M.T.C., even so Ferro-Alloys must be held to be the real exporter in view of the objective underlying section 280ZC. If the M.M.T.C. has acquired the title to the goods and is the exporter for all other purposes, it is equally the exporter for the purposes of section 280ZC
-
1993 (4) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled, for the assessment year 1973-74, to relief under section 80T of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on an amount calculated in terms of the aforesaid provisions, with reference to the gross capital gains of Rs. 1,02,740
-
1993 (4) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission paid by the assessee company to its directors was an additional remuneration forming part and parcel of the salary allowed to them and that the said remuneration would not be covered by section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act and thereby allowing the assessee's claim for allowing the deduction of the whole amount of commission paid to the directors
-
1993 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
High Court, thus, came to the conclusion that the excess amount charged by the Agro Corporation was part of the sale price of the tractors sold by it and it was under no legal or constitutional obligation to refund the same to the customers - We see no infirmity in the High Court judgment
-
1993 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Jurisdiction of High Court - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 19 being the interest received on the deposit made with the electricity company, is a business receipt and, accordingly, deleting the additional surcharge - High court setting aside order of tribunal and directing tribunal to consider on all points is within scope of high court's jurisdiction
-
1993 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Claim for deduction under section 37(1) - As to what portion of the miscellaneous expenses claimed is a deductible entertainment expenses of the assessee being a matter to be decided by the fact-finding authorities - no question of law could arise in that regard, particularly, when the fact-finding authorities have recorded their concurrent finding on consideration of the relevant material
....
|