|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 440 Records
-
2003 (2) TMI 41 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Application filed by the petitioner for registration as charitable trust - In our view, the petitioner was deprived of reasonable opportunity to produce all the relevant documents due to time constraint - Accordingly, we are of the view that there, is denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, both the orders, as contained in annexures 2/A and 3 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhagalpur, to take fresh decision in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. - we have not expressed any opinion about the merits of the claim which is for the authorities to consider in accordance with law.
-
2003 (2) TMI 40 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
A notice under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is the subject matter of challenge in this proceedings. - We are, of the view that there is no infirmity in the exercise of the power or authorisation of the search and seizure at No. 58, J.L. Nehru Raod, or No. 87, Southern Avenue, Calcutta, in respect of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and that of Pratik Food Products, as was sought to be urged on behalf of the respondent-assessee. - So far as the question of return of the documents is concerned, if there was no extension for retention of the documents under section 132(8) with the approval of the authority, there is no scope for retaining the documents any further.
-
2003 (2) TMI 39 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 - "Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deceased had 1/3rd share in Nahata Bhawan, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, and the said share passed on the death of the deceased? - Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not computing the value of Nahata Bhawan in accordance with the provisions of rule 1BB of the Wealth tax Rules, 1957? - Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not applying multiple of ten on the net maintainable rent while computing value of Nahata Bhawan? - Whether the Tribunal was right in law in determining interest of the deceased in Nahata Bhawan at Rs. 2 lakhs?" - we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee-accountable person. - So far as questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, we answer all these questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the accountable person and against the Revenue.
-
2003 (2) TMI 38 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The income-tax authorities contended that as per the interpretation of law made by the apex court certain deductions were not admissible and therefore there, was "a mistake apparent from the record" and therefore rectifiable under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, notices dated January 16, 1995, for both the aforesaid assessment years under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were issued to the petitioner. - This court is of the view that the Explanation added to rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to define an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record is equally applicable to section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In construing section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the court is justified in taking into consideration other enactments where identical provision has been defined by the same Legislature. - In the result, this application succeeds. The notices dated January 16, 1995, being annexure F to the petition are quashed and declared null and void.
-
2003 (2) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
"(i) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the guarantee commission of charges of Rs. 5,91,015 paid to E.C.G.C. on commission of Rs. 8,37,862 paid to Tata Exports and on 75 per cent. of the proportionate administrative expenses of Rs. 2,54,356? - (ii) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,983 made under section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act on account of entertainment expenditure incur red by the assessee? - (iii) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the excess price of sugar collected over and above the control price fixed by the Government for the assessment year 1978-79, was not taxable as income of the assessee for said assessment year ? - the reference is partly allowed
-
2003 (2) TMI 36 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
"1. Whether, Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is an institution which satisfied the conditions of section 2(15), read with section 11? - 2. Whether, Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee derived income from property held in trust and even if it is not to be treated as property held under trust, it can only be treated as property held under trust as voluntary contribution given by Hyderabad Race Club? - 3. Whether, Tribunal is justified in holding that the activity carried on by the assessee did not constitute a business and even if it were business, it was not such business as would be hit by section 13(1)(bb) of the Act?" - questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2003 (2) TMI 35 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Non- resident - "1. Whether the assessee has income accruing and arising in India which is chargeable under section 5(2) of the Income-tax Act? - 2. If section 5(2) is not applicable then is there any business connection and the income accrued could be deemed to be under section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act? - 3. Even if section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act is not applicable, whether the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act are applicable?" - we are of the considered opinion that no income accrued under section 5(2) or there was any business connection, which is required under section 9(1)(i), as there was no dealing between the non-resident and resident on principal-to-principal basis, as such, there was no business connection involved. - The expenses met cannot be viewed in isolation from the main contract and once this is so, whether the payments were made on daily basis or not for any technical services rendered they would form part and parcel of consideration for the purchase of machinery. Thus, the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act would not be applicable to the facts of this case. On the other hand, such payments are exempted under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii)
-
2003 (2) TMI 34 - DELHI HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of benefit or amenity relating to expenses on car for the purpose of applying the provisions of section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act has to be restricted to the assessable value of such benefit or amenity as perquisite in the hands of the employee-director?" - In view of the said authoritative pronouncement and bearing in mind the fact that the provisions of section 40(c) are substantially irk pari materia with the provisions of section 40A(5), the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2003 (2) TMI 33 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Stock – valuation - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing the corresponding adjustments in the closing stock valuation while admittedly the opening stock valuation stands reduced and the non-reduced valuation of the opening stock was reckoned in valuing the closing stock?" - we answer the question referred in the affirmative, that is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee
-
2003 (2) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of the notice, dated March 30, 1978, issued to the petitioner under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), proposing to reopen assessment for the assessment year 1973-74.- Scientific Research Expenditure - although the writ petition was admitted to hearing in the year 1979, the events taking place during the pendency of the writ petition, in particular the aforenoted order of the Tribunal, have material bearing on the reopening of the assessment for the relevant year. As a matter of fact, in our view, the said order should have been brought on record in the year 1980 when it was passed. Under the circumstances, we feel that it would be appropriate and expedient if all these subsequent events are brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer to enable him to take a decision as to whether he would still like to continue with the proceedings initiated by virtue of notice under section 148 of the Act.
-
2003 (2) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Offences and prosecution - Unless the complaint disclosed a prima facie case against the applicants/accused of their liability and obligation as principal officers in the day-to-day affairs of the company as directors of the company under section 278B, the applicants cannot be prosecuted for the offences committed by the company. In the absence of any material in the complaint itself prima facie disclosing responsibility of the accused for the running of the day-to-day affairs of the company process could not have been issued against them. The applicants cannot be made to undergo the ordeal of a trial unless it could be prima facie showed that they are legally liable for the failure of the company in paying the amount deducted to the credit of the company. Otherwise, it would be a travesty of justice to prosecute them and ask them to prove that the offence is committed without their knowledge.
-
2003 (2) TMI 30 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Challenge in this bunch of writ petitions is to the vires of the Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2001, whereby the definition of "annual value" in clause (1) of section 2 of the principal Act has been amended. - After the amendment the law had changed and fresh directions had been issued by the State Government keeping in view the amended provisions. The Municipal Council had, thus, no option but to revise the assessment in the light of the fresh directions issued in terms of the amended provisions which, as we have held above, were constitutionally valid. - In the result, the writ petitions fail and they stand dismissed
-
2003 (2) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
"Whether, Tribunal was legally correct in allowing deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth tax Act, 1957?" - It has been mentioned in section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, which is the charging section, that wealth-tax is levied on individual, Hindu undivided family and a company. Thus, wealth-tax cannot be levied on a firm under the Wealth-tax Act. - Since the house in question, which is said to belong to the firm, in reality belongs to the partners and since the assessee is one of the co-owners of the house property, in our opinion, the value of his share in the house property has to be deducted from the net wealth for the purposes of wealth-tax. - We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
2003 (2) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Scope and ambit of section 133(6) as amended by the Finance Act, 1995, arise for consideration in these appeals - it is clear that it is not a condition for the issuance of a notice under section 133(6) of the Act that any proceedings under the Act against the person with respect to whom the information is called for should be pending. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the only limitation is that before issuing a notice requiring a banking company to furnish information in respect of such points or matters as may be useful or relevant is to get the prior approval of the Director or the Commissioner, as the case may be. Admittedly, in the present case, notice was issued only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner. In these circumstances, we agree with the conclusion reached by the learned single judge that the impugned notices are issued validly and with jurisdiction. There is no merit in these appeals
-
2003 (2) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
"Whether, , initial contribution by the assessee-company of Rs. 1,28,228 to superannuation fund was a allowable deduction for the assessment year 1978-79?" - "Whether, , the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 22,81,847 which paid by the assessee company to its employees over and above the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act for the assessment year 1979-80?" - Whether, , the limit prescribed under section 80G(4) was not confined to 55 per cent. (50 per cent.) of 10 per cent. of gross total income and the said section only prescribed the ceiling for deduction for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80?" - Question No. 1 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. - Question No. 2 In the negative and in favour of the Revenue. - Question No. 3: In the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2003 (2) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the technical fees of Rs. 1,13,572 and Rs. 1,79,775 were required to be charged at 20 per cent. as per the provisions of section 115A(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time?" - we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee
-
2003 (2) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income-tax Officer was satisfied about the actual amount received towards advance and only an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs out of the balance was to be further explained and they were telescoped. The entire sum of Rs. 19 lakhs was considered for the block assessment completed as early as on October 28, 1999, in the case of M. 0. Devassy alias Pappu much before the survey. In these circumstances, the statement of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 13 lakhs offered by him in the statement during the course of survey is only a mistake of fact cannot be brushed aside. - We find nothing in the order of the Income-tax Officer to warrant a finding that it is unsustainable in law. - Wwe hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in law in invoking the powers under section 263 of the Income-tax Act as the twin conditions precedent to exercise the power have not been satisfied in this case.
-
2003 (2) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the determination of amount payable by the petitioner under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and a clarification dated January 5, 1999, issued by the member (Legislation) of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. - the petition partly succeeds. The addition of interest in the determination dated February 23, 1999, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to pay 50 per cent. of the penalty in respect of each of the aforesaid four assessment years together with further interest at the rates provided under section 220 of the Income-tax Act commencing from 30 days after February 23, 1999, until the date of payment. It is made clear that in computing the interest statutory modifications if any of section 220 of the Income-tax Act shall be taken into consideration. Such payment is to be made within 30 days from the date hereof.
-
2003 (2) TMI 23 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner-Punjab State Warehousing Corporation for quashing the orders passed by the CIT and the Income-tax Officer, declining to allow interest on the amount retained by the respondents as advance tax on various dates during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 till the date of its refund on December 20, 1978 - petitioner, in the circumstances, is not entitled to claim interest on delayed refunds in terms of section 243(1)(a) or (b). To claim interest in terms of section 243(1) it is to be shown that the total income of the assessee does not consist solely of income from securities and dividends and in any other case within three months from the end of the month in which the claim for refund is made under Chapter XIX. The claim of the petitioner for interest on the refund before the Commissioner was in terms of section 214 of the Act which was declined in terms of the impugned order - there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed
-
2003 (2) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Industrial undertaking - goods for export - interest income on short-term deposits will not partake the character of business income and the same has to be assessed only as income under other sources - benefit under section 80HH - in working out the profit derived in the industrial undertaking belonging to the assessee the profit earned from the sale of the kernels processed in the factories of third parties is to be included for the purpose of section 80HH because for the purpose of the benefit under section 80HH of the Act it is immaterial as to whether the raw cashew is processed for export in the factories of the assessee or in the factories belonging to third parties
....
|
