Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 189 of 189 Records
-
1986 (10) TMI 9
Business Connection, Income Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India, Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... was that of the assessee and it paid for the same even the freight charges from the European port to the place of destination were paid by the assessee. Thus, judged from any angle, the sale of machinery, which are goods within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act, was completely outside India. A mere provision in the agreement that the assessee is entitled to satisfy itself about the quality and standard of the machinery in India cannot, in the circumstances of this case, detract from the fundamental position that the sale took place outside India. In such a situation, one has to apply the test of predominance and decide where the sale took place ? On combined reading of the clauses of the agreement, we have no doubt that the sale of machinery did take place outside India. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
-
1986 (10) TMI 8
Deposit In Bank, Exemptions, Held By Assessee, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... n the valuation date occurring in section 2(m) defining net wealth are of significance. If a property belonging to the assessee, wherever located, can be computed as an asset for the purpose of the definition of net wealth, then on the same analogy, the fixed deposit receipt belonging to the assessee, though lying with the bank for a particular purpose would be taken as property held by the assessee on the relevant date of valuation which occurred before the date of maturity of the fixed deposit receipt entitling him to the exemption under clause (xxvi) of section 5(1) of the Act. Consequently, the reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as under On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not legally correct in rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption in respect of the fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 50,000 under section 5(1)(xxvi) of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, costs are made easy.
-
1986 (10) TMI 7
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... neous Petition No. 15 of 1975. The order that would be passed by the Tribunal would, in that case, be inconsistent with the decision of this court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 15 of 1975. The Revenue could have urged before this court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 15 of 1975 that the orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal were without jurisdiction but the Revenue did not choose to do so. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in holding that in view of the order passed by this court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 15 of 1975, there was no scope for considering the question as to whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the impugned orders of the Income-tax Officer. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of this case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1986 (10) TMI 6
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... exemption under sections 10(22) and 10(22A) of the Incometax Act, 1961 ? In view of the decision in Addl. CIT v. Aditanar Educational Institution 1979 118 ITR 235 (Mad), no referable question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1986 (10) TMI 5
... ... ... ... ..... an application for making a reference to this court was made. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that as the Department had given up its claim for capital gains tax, under the deeming provision, gift-tax could be levied on the basis of the valuation put forth by the valuer. He, therefore, submitted that, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal should be called upon to make a reference regarding the proposed question of law submitted by the applicant. However, after hearing learned counsel and after going through the authority referred to above, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which the Tribunal should be called upon to make a reference as proposed by the applicant, as the Tribunal has given valid reasons for rejecting that prayer. In these circumstances, the application is dismissed and we decline to call upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to make a reference on the proposed question of law as submitted by the applicant.
-
1986 (10) TMI 4
Association Of Persons ... ... ... ... ..... ion of persons was not valid since the assessment in the case of the members thereof had been made earlier ? In view of the decision in CIT v. R. Dhandayutham 1973 113 ITR 602 (Mad), the question will have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and it is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1986 (10) TMI 3
Renewal of registration - Tribunal was not right in considering that the correctness or the legality of the application made by the assessee should be considered under the provisions of the 1922 Act and the rules framed thereunder - Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the assessee-firm was not entitled to renewal of registration
-
1986 (10) TMI 2
Whether, the properties in respect of which registered sale deeds had not been executed, but consideration had been received, belonged to the assessee for the purpose of inclusion in his net wealth within the meaning of section 2(m) - held that from the terms of the agreement that there was an express stipulation precluding commutation - it comes within sub-clause (iv) of section 2(e) and the assessee was entitled to exemption - question, is answered in negative & in favour of the assessee.
-
1986 (10) TMI 1
Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income derived by the beneficiaries under the two trust deeds belonged to the beneficiary in individual capacity and not in the capacity as representing the Hindu undivided family - held that income of beneficiary should be taxed as his individual income
....
|