Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1983 1983 (11) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 266 of 266 Records
-
1983 (11) TMI 6
Accumulated Profits, Advance Or Loan From Company, Annual Value, Deemed Dividend, Income From House Property, Interest
-
1983 (11) TMI 5
Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... ittedly, in this case, the house has not actually been let out, but it is used for the owner s residence. Perhaps taking into account this circumstance, the municipal authorities had fixed the annual letting value at Rs. 9,828. Since there is no material to indicate that the said annual letting value was fixed long before the improvements were made to the house, the Tribunal has rightly assumed that the municipal authorities while fixing the annual letting value for the building in the year in question should have taken into consideration the improvements also. Since it is not possible to say that the annual letting value fixed by the municipal authorities is not relevant for the purpose of determining the annual letting value under section 23 of the Income-tax Act, we are not in a position to say that the Tribunal went wrong in accepting the municipal valuation. Therefore, no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 4
Business Expenditure, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... partment would be only to give an advantage to firms who keep the accounts in a particular way while that would be denied to firms, like the present one, which, for the sake of convenience, keep separate accounts one for capital and one for drawings of each partner. In our opinion, the word payment of interest referred to in section 40(b) refers to the actual net amount of interest paid to each partner. The interpretation of section 40(b) could not depend upon a particular way in which interest is accounted for in the books of a firm. It is clear from the above discussion that if the firm had not kept two separate accounts, section 40(b) would have been applied only in relation to net interest debited to the partners accounts. We, therefore, fail to see how the position of law would change if two accounts were maintained as has been done in the present case. While agreeing with the view taken by the Tribunal, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1983 (11) TMI 3
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... purpose of his business and it could not be considered as an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business as required under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. It is not disputed that the withdrawals for the personal expenses of the assessee had no nexus at all with the business of the assessee. The assessee s contention that he was compelled to withdraw from the said firm in order to save his investments in the other firms is to be rejected. It is not the case of the assessee, as observed by the Tribunal, that if the amounts had been withdrawn by the assessee from his credit balances in the other firms, those firms would have collapsed. We, therefore, find no merit in the assessee s contention and the claim for deduction of the interest was rightly rejected by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Tribunal. In the result, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and against the assessee.
-
1983 (11) TMI 2
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ding that the surtax paid is not an allowable deduction in computing the total income under the Income-tax Act ? In view of the decision of this court in I. T. R. C. Nos. 109 and 110 of 1979 CIT v. International Instruments (P.) Ltd. 1983 144 ITR 936 disposed of on 14-9-1983, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
-
1983 (11) TMI 1
Whether the Revenue is under a statutory obligation to communicate to the person (from whose custody books of account & documents have been seized u/s132(1)), the approval obtained from the CIT for the retention of the seized books by the Department for a period exceeding 180 days from the date of seizure - orders passed by the High Court directing the return of the seized books of account and documents to the respondents in each of the appeals are confirmed - appeal of revenue dismissed
....
|
|