|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 467 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 87 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Block Assessment, Salary, Tax Deducted At Source From Salary - "1. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding itself that the total income of the assessee is below taxable limit then he was not obliged/required to file return of income and as such the assessee's case was covered by section 139(1A) of the Act and thereby deleting additions? - 2. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing to allow the credit for TDS in block assessment when such income was not added in the total income of the assessee for block assessment period? - 3. Whether the order passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal suffers from perversity of law and facts?" - Tribunal is right and justified in holding that from the income from salary of the assessee for the block year if tax deducted at source has been deducted and the same has not been refunded back to the assessee, there is no question to tax that income again when tax deducted at source has already been deducted. The salary income has been excluded from computing the tax, there is no question of accommodation of tax deducted at source amount against any other income of the assessee received, or income other than salary income.
-
2002 (7) TMI 86 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal To CIT(A), Powers Of CIT(A), Appeal To Appellate Tribunal - "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal once having held that its decisions are binding on the lower authorities, was right in not setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in which the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had refused to follow the order of the Tribunal? - (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing the appeal on the preliminary issue regarding binding nature of orders of the Tribunal on lower authorities and instead dismissing the appeal on the basis of the grounds which were raised 'without prejudice' to the grounds regarding preliminary issue? - (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in reviewing its own decision in the case of Arihant Builders, Developers and Investors Pvt. Ltd. particularly when a reference arising out of the said order was already pending before the court? And whether the Tribunal is right in relying upon the decision in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India?
-
2002 (7) TMI 85 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the present assessment proceedings should be considered to be barred by law because of the intervening irregularities and the consequent delay?" - In our view the time barring assessment does not come within the purview of mistake, defect or omission referred in section 292B of the Act, 1961, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. - In the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 84 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government - appellant submitted that the trial court has come to the conclusion that there was no transfer of immovable property and hence acquitted the accused. The trial court has not considered the terms of the agreement properly and it has not considered the provisions of section 269UA, clauses (f) and (e) and also sections 269UC and 269C. - This is a case where the trial court has come to a decision based on the records. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse. Even if there is a possibility for this court to come to a different conclusion, where two views are possible, the conclusion of the trial court cannot be set aside in an appeal against acquittal. Since this is an appeal against acquittal, that conclusion of the trial court cannot be set aside and hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 83 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that even if the assessee-trust is assumed to be a valid charitable trust at the inception, in any case, it ceased to be a charitable trust, as it indirectly carried on a profit earning activity by having let out the first floor to a firm in which one of the trustees was a partner and, therefore, it was not entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - When the consistent finding of the three authorities, i.e., the Assessing Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal, is there that the rent of that portion of the building, which has been given to a firm, in which one of the trustees is a partner, is an inadequate amount, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. - we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (7) TMI 82 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The question of law, which is referred to us at the instance of the assessee and as per the directions of the High Court, is as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the income from shooting hire charges is not agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82?" - we find that the Tribunal was absolutely right in declining to hold that the income earned by the assessee by permitting film producers to shoot their films in his garden is not "agricultural income". In that view, we would answer the question against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 81 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Unexplained Investment, Appeal To High Court - The short question that arises is whether the estimate made by the Income tax Officer, which was reduced by the Commissioner of Income-tax, and which was further reduced by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is proper and whether any question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. - we find that no question of law, much less, a substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, calling for our interference. Accordingly, the appeals fail and they are dismissed in the admission stage itself in limine.
-
2002 (7) TMI 80 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of sections 13(2)(h) and 13(3) applied and whether the assessee-trust was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - we answer the question referred to us partly in the negative and partly in the affirmative. However, it is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 79 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Valuation Of Immovable Property - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to arrive at the value of the immovable property by applying rule 1BB and further in directing if the value arrived at by applying rule 1BB does not exceed the value as per the books by 20 percent, then he shall not apply rule 2B(2) in respect of the immovable property?" - we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 78 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Avoidance, Pension Received From Abroad - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the pension received by the assessee from the Malaysian Government could not be assessed as salary under the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - Tribunal has pointed out that the University of Malaysia is a statutory authority and as such would fall within the term "Government" and, therefore, the pension paid by the University of Malaysia as in the present case would have to be construed for the purpose of the Agreement as a pension received from the Government, which is taxable in terms of article 18(3) in Malaysia by the Government of Malaysia. We do not find anything wrong in the order and it is absolutely correct and we confirm the same. The question is therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal - limits are fixed for filing the appeals - Department bearing F. No. 279/126/98-ITJ, dated March 27, 2000, whereby the limits are fixed for filing the appeals or the references, as the case may be, by the Department. Mr. P. P. S. Janardhana Raja points out and it is not controverted that in the present appeals, the tax liability is shorter than those limits fixed by the circular. There is nothing pointed out to us that the appeals can be covered under the four exceptions given in that circular and that is not the case of the Department also. In that view, we are of the clear opinion that the Department could not have filed these appeals. Such a view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Camco Colour Co.. We respectfully agree with that view. Even on the merits, we do not find any substance in the matter
-
2002 (7) TMI 76 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - The core question which arises for the consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme in accordance with the provisions of section 90(1) and (2) of the Scheme of 1998. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the provisions of the scheme. In view of the aforesaid order there cannot be any dispute that a writ petition was pending on the date of filing of the declaration. It is also not in dispute that the declaration was filed before the last date of filing. In these circumstances, it is obligatory for the designated authority to proceed with the declaration proceedings as provided under clause (1) and clause (2) of section 90. Accordingly, we direct the designated authority to proceed in accordance with law on the declaration filed by the petitioner.
-
2002 (7) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Cinema Theatre - "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to claim any investment allowance on the projector and air-conditioning plant installed during the relevant previous year?" The point that arises in the tax case is whether the assessee, a cinema theatre, is entitled to claim investment allowance in respect of the air-conditioning plant as well as on the projector installed by it in the theatre. - We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is not entitled to claim investment allowance on the projector as well as air-conditioning plant installed in the cinema theatre. Accordingly, the question of law referred to us is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 74 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance Of Expenditure, Interest On Deposits - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that no disallowance of interest should be made on interest payments made to the directors and shareholders on the credit balances in the current accounts held by them with the assessee in terms of section 40A(8) of the Act? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest payment made to the directors and shareholders on their deposits with the assessee-company is excepted by the provisions of section 40A(8) on the basis of the ratio of the decision laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Kalani Asbestos (P.) Ltd. ?" - questions of law referred to us are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (7) TMI 73 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Disallowance Of Expenditure - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the royalty paid to the director as a proprietor of the trade mark could be treated as a benefit derived by a director within the meaning of section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - the question of law is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (7) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision, Limitation, Extension Of Period Of Limitation - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the exercise of powers by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 was within the period of limitation?" - we answer the references against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 71 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Settlement Of Cases - The petitioners in these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the orders dated February 25, 1999 and February 23, 1999, respectively, passed by the designated authority rejecting the petitioners' declaration filed under section 89 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998. The said declaration was filed by the petitioners under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 - It is true that the designated authority cannot consider the merits of that appeal, but it is equally true that only for the purposes of availing of the benefit under the KVS Scheme, frivolous appeal/revision was filed though there was no occasion to file such appeal/revision. In this view of the matter, the designated authority is certainly justified in rejecting the impugned declaration. - it is not necessary for us to go into the other aspects of the matter. We, therefore, confirm the orders passed by the designated authority, rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioners of both the cases.
-
2002 (7) TMI 70 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure - Special Provision - Circular - Revenue has challenged the decision of the Tribunal on two counts, i.e., whether reopening of the assessment is valid and whether furnishing of bank guarantee by the assessee against customs duty amounts to actual payment of customs duty and is not hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Whether the reopening was bad or illegal, we have to consider the provisions of section 147 as it stood in the relevant years. - In the result, reopening of the assessment in the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 is bad and when the reopening of the assessment is bad, there is no need to go into the merits whether the tax was allowable on the basis of furnishing of a bank guarantee, therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. So far as the assessment year 1987-88 is concerned, reopening has been held valid and we found that the furnishing of a bank guarantee is not tantamount to actual payment of the customs duty as required under section 43B, therefore, that has been hit by the provisions of section 43B of the Act, 1961, and the Tribunal has committed error in allowing the deduction of customs duty liability on the basis of a bank guarantee furnished by the assessee.
-
2002 (7) TMI 69 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources - Search - "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that an investment in the name of the assessee's wife may be treated as the undisclosed income of the appellant, where admittedly, the property belongs to the wife, if the wife is not in a position to explain the sources of the investment? - (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in the absence of a categorical finding that the investment was made by the appellant in the name of the wife, such investment can be deemed to be the undisclosed income of the appellant? - (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in so far as any investment the source of which is not explained, can be assessed as an undisclosed income only of the financial year in which such investment is made under section 69A or 69B of the Income-tax Act, in the name of the person, who makes such an investment the conclusion of the Tribunal is right in law? - "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any material for the Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 3,49,000 representing the estimated family expenses during the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 represents the undisclosed income of the appellant?"
-
2002 (7) TMI 68 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business - Adventure In The Nature Of Trade - Both the authorities have found that the assessee was in service; no change in the character of the said plot had been effected from the year 1971 to 1989; there was no material on record from where it could be said that the assessee ever had the intention to exploit the plot as a commercial venture. We are in complete agreement with the Tribunal that merely because six flats had been constructed, out of which four were sold to friends, it would not show that it was an adventure in the nature of trade, as is sought to be pleaded by learned counsel for the Revenue. We do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal
....
|
