Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 503 Records
-
2005 (11) TMI 44 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital or revenue expenditure - "(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the claims of the assessee in respect of production bonus amounting to Rs. 7,32,449 apart from the staff bonus which was allowed? (2) Whether Tribunal is right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the discount on sales amounting to Rs. 2,02,754 holding the same not to be caught by the mischief of section 37(3A)?" - in the absence of any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal question No. 1 is required to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - In relation to the second question, it cannot be stated that the discount allowed on sales of diesel engines worth Rs. 2,02,754 could be treated to be sales promotion within the meaning of section 37(3A) read with section 37(3B) of the Act. The Tribunal was therefore right in holding that the said payment of discount could not be termed to be expenditure for sales promotion
-
2005 (11) TMI 43 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Sale of house – capital gain - Tribunal held that the execution of four different sale deeds in respect of four different portions of the property did not materially affect the nature of the transaction or the nature of the property acquired since the property in question was being used by the assessee for her own purposes and investment made in the purchase of the same was therefore eligible for deduction under section 54 - In the light of the above finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for our consideration in this appeal
-
2005 (11) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Unexplained Investment - "Whether, Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by way of excess of investment over sources therefor, misdirecting itself in law without considering the weight of evidence, circumstances, sequence of events and legal principles relating to burden of proof?" - conclusion of the Tribunal was purely on the basis of findings of fact and we do not see any reason whatsoever to interfere with the same
-
2005 (11) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Notice of reopening the assessment of income of the petitioner under section 148 - when the decision to reopen the matter itself is taken beyond the period provided and when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the relevant material, the assessee cannot be put into another jeopardy by reopening the matter - petition deserves to be allowed and we quash and set aside the notice dated March 29, 2004, issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act and also the consequent reassessment order made on February 28, 2005
-
2005 (11) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Charitable Purposes - Donation – renewal of registration of society- petitioner submitted an application and applied before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, for registration under section 80G r.w.r. 11AA of the Income-tax Rules, having complied with requisite terms and conditions for such registration under section 12AA - we have no doubt, purchase of land is not an activity which may be held beyond the scope of the aforequoted clauses (d) and (m) which are part of aims and objects of the society. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that the petitioner by purchasing agricultural land indulged in an activity which is beyond "aims and objects" of the society - Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, has erred in law and committed manifest error apparent on the record in concluding that the conditions laid down in section 80G(5), rule 11AA of the Income-tax Rules, were not fulfilled and to thereby rejecting the application for renewal of registration of the society u/s 80G(5)(iv)
-
2005 (11) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment - proceedings under section 147/148 it does not appear that any fresh information had been received either from within or from without the Department - initiation of proceedings is not justified
-
2005 (11) TMI 38 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Challenge to best judgment assessment - The appellate authority had not disclosed as to why it has not taken in to consideration the trading and profit and loss account submitted by the petitioner and on what basis the computation is made. On the other hand as reflected from the order, the basis of computation of profit at 9 per cent, is general and casual. The revisional authority-also rejected the petitioner's prayer to reduce the net profit rate without assigning any reasons as to how the rate of 9 per cent, is just and reasonable. - In view of the aforesaid, the orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority are held to be arbitrary to the extent they upheld the rate of 9 per cent, and are, therefore, quashed. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to reconsidered as to the rate which can be applied while estimating net profits
-
2005 (11) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Expenditure- Capital or Revenue - "Whether Tribunal was right in law in allowing the expenditure of a sum on constructing the ground floor over existing basement floor as revenue expenditure, under section 37(1), even though a new permanent capital asset has been brought into existence?" - assessee had put up the ground floor over the existing basement floor only to have the business premises according to the specifications put forth by TVS Suzuki Limited and further, there is a clear-cut stipulation in the lease deed that reimbursement of the expenditure is not possible from the owner of the premises. Hence, in view of the business exigencies, the assessee had put up the construction, in and by which, the assessee would not get any capital asset - question is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee
-
2005 (11) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income from Undisclosed Sources – Additions - "1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that the addition being the difference in valuation of closing stock as at March 31, 1994, applying different method of valuation by the respondent/Assessing Officer in contrast to the facts existed in the earlier years was justified, based on assumption of certain facts? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in confirming the said addition consequent to the revaluation of closing stock of cotton upon ignoring the consistent method of valuation of the said stock of cotton based on 'cost or market price whichever is lower', adopted by the appellant over the period of years and accepted in assessments framed in those years?" - finding of Tribunal that the explanation offered by the assessee was not found to be bona fide and thus concealed the income to evade tax and this attracts the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are well founded - substantial questions of law raised in the above appeals are answered in the affirmative against the assessee
-
2005 (11) TMI 35 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Interest on the refund - "(i) Whether the expression 'the date on which the refund is granted' in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 244A, as was applicable in the relevant assessment year, in the facts and circumstances of the case, need to be construed to be the date of service of the refund order and the Tribunal acted contrary to law in modifying the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)? (ii) Whether the belated despatch of refund order is against the legislative intendment as contemplated under section 244A, and entitles the assessee for interest on the refund amount u/s 244A and also on equitable consideration till the date of service of refund order?" - In clause (a) the words have been used "refund is granted". Refund is granted the moment the concerned officer has signed the order regarding payment of the interest under section 244A. We see no error in the order of the Tribunal.
-
2005 (11) TMI 34 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Retirement of Partner - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that there should be two separate assessments in the case of the assessee?" - new contract was entered into on August 27, 1980, incorporating fresh terms, including the change in the accounting period and the same came to be accepted by the Assessing Officer. On behalf of the Revenue, there is no evidence pointed out from the record that the new contract entered into between the parties, including the change in the accounting period, had any relevance with the old partnership - there is no infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal so as to warrant intervention
-
2005 (11) TMI 33 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
In search and seizure operation, evidence of two fixed deposit certificates issued by the then ANZ Grindlays Bank for Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 25,000, respectively, renewed up to date, were found. The said fixed deposits certificates were issued in the name of the petitioner, who had shown his address in the care of one Subodh Misra of M/s. Dolphine Service. On the basis of the said facts a consequential warrant of authorisation under section 132(1A) was issued for search and the premises of the bank and thereafter on January 20, 2000, the respondents converted the value of the certificates into a bankers cheque payable to the Department whereafter the money was deposited in the account of the Commissioner, in accordance with the provisions of rule 112 of the Income-tax Rules. Aggrieved by the said action the instant writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate intervention of the court.
-
2005 (11) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scope Of Section 68 - "(1) Whether, Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act? (2) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the addition of ₹ 50,000 in the total income of the assessee is income from undisclosed sources?" - Tribunal, after holding that the gift was not genuine, goes on to state that, therefore, there was no full and true disclosure by the assessee in the original return of income, and that the facts came to light only during gift-tax assessment proceedings in the hands of Shri Ramji Nanji. However, in the view that the court has taken on the merits, it is not necessary to render any opinion in relation to question No. 1 relating to reopening under section 147(a) - In the result, question No. 2 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 1 is left unanswered
-
2005 (11) TMI 31 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Applicability of the provisions of section 195 - The petitioner obtained a stay of collection of disputed tax and interest on February 14, 2003, from the Tribunal subject to certain conditions. The appeals were heard by the Appellate Tribunal and the arguments were concluded on both the sides on January 5, 2004. The parties were directed to file written submissions, which they did. The Tribunal instead of pronouncing the orders on the merits reopened the appeals as part-heard for the purpose of considering the issue as to whether the petitioner required the permission of the "Committee of Disputes". That after hearing the parties, the Appellate Tribunal held that the matter has to be referred to the Committee of Disputes and accordingly dismissed the stay petitions in limine with the further observation that the appeals preferred by the petitioner cannot be admitted - The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal misdirected itself in applying the decisions of the Supreme Court in ONGC cases. The Tribunal committed a grave error in passing the impugned order instead of disposing of the appeals on the merits. The impugned order is unsustainable in law and the same is accordingly quashed
-
2005 (11) TMI 30 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
"Whether Tribunal was justified in overturning and unsettling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263, on the ground that the Commissioner had not recorded reasons that there had been prejudice to the interests of the Revenue but solely on the foundation that the Assessing Officer did not have the ample opportunity to proceed with the assessment and there was no sufficient time on the part of the Additional Commissioner to check the order of assessment passed by the original authority?" - What was the sequitur or consequence of such order qua prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue should have been focussed upon. That having not been done, in our considered opinion, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is totally erroneous and cannot withstand scrutiny. Hence, the Tribunal has correctly unsettled and dislodged the order of the Commissioner. Consequently, we are disposed to think, the appeals are sans merit and accordingly they are dismissed
-
2005 (11) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT
In the course of the assessment, the assessee claimed that the amounts received by it from M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited were not exigible to tax. The Assessing Officer declined to accept that contention and declared the receipt exigible to tax in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax and, inter alia, relied upon the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, according to which, receipts of the kind referred to above could be brought to tax only from the assessment year 1998-99 onwards in view of the amendment made in section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner upheld the claim and the contention urged by the assessee. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court as also the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Commissioner held that the receipts in question were not exigible to tax for the periods they were actually received. - In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court regarding the binding nature of the instructions issued under section 119 of the Act, as also the fact that the appellate authority, has while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, placed reliance upon the instructions, we see no substantial question of law arising for our consideration in this appeal
-
2005 (11) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
In our considered opinion, if reasons are supplied along with the notice under section 148(2, it shall obviate unnecessary harassment to the assessee as well to the Revenue by avoiding unnecessary litigation which will save courts also from being involved in unproductive litigations. Above all it shall be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In view of the admitted position in the undisputed facts of the instant case that reasons have been disclosed/communicated though during pendency of the writ petition in this court, the grievance of the parties, if any, has become non-existent and there being no surviving cause of action today, the writ petition does not survive and hence is liable to fail.
-
2005 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT
Trust - exemption u/s 11 and 12 - allegation of violation of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 - trust was registered after the receipt of the amount by the assessee from Dubai, though it is claimed that the application for registration had been filed earlier - impugned order is set aside - matter is remitted to the HC for its fresh determination in accordance with law - HC could not have been dismissed the appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law arises
-
2005 (11) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT
Export - firm engaged in the imports of synthetic waste and manufacture and export of woolen blankets - power exercised by the Assessing Officer under section 145 - income which has not been derived by the assessee cannot be said to be the income chargeable for income-tax and, therefore, the rejection of the accounts maintained by the assessee for the valuation of the closing stock by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the High Court is in accordance with law.
-
2005 (11) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT
Non-resident - appellant has filed these appeals as the agent of its employees who are the assessees in the present case. The appellant itself is a company which was incorporated in Panama - whether the salary of the employees of the appellant payable for field breaks outside India would be subjected to tax under section 9(1) (ii) read with the Explanation thereto - held that the 1999 Explanation would "not apply to the assessment years in question.
....
|