Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1987 1987 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 221 to 233 of 233 Records

• 1987 (10) TMI 13 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t it had no value whatever. The assessee is the niece of the donor of the gift. The gift was considered by the Land Board in its proceedings relating to the properties liable to be surrendered by the donor. The Board, as found by the Tribunal, accepted the validity of the gift and held that it was not the property of the donor as it was validly transferred by him. The order of the Land Board has become final. It is stated at the Bar that the finality of the order is no longer open to challenge by reason of lapse of time. In the circumstances, the Tribunal, on the facts found, came to a totally unsustainable conclusion. Accordingly, we answer the two questions in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Widely Held Company

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ly in respect of 74,999 shares. Of these, more than fifty per cent. thereof had been held by less than six persons for both the years. It was, therefore, possible for those shareholders to control the affairs of the company as the voting power was concentrated in less than six persons. Therefore, in our view, the construction placed by the Appellate Tribunal on sub-clause (iii) is the correct one and the Tribunal has rightly excluded for the purpose of reckoning the 50 of the shares carrying voting power, the shares which have not been registered in the name of the heirs of, Ramakrishnan, and correctly found that the status of the assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. The question referred is accordingly answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Disallowance

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... th this contention. Indeed, we need not answer this contention. In this case, we are only concerned with the justifiability or otherwise of the disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee, in law, and we have upheld the same. What consequence follows in a given case is a matter of law which does not concern us in this reference. However, since the record placed before us shows that 467 cartons of cigarettes were confiscated and, at the same time, the cost price thereof, i.e.. Rs. 18,680, appears to have been added back to the income of the assessee, it may be a proper case where the Tribunal, while passing final orders under section 260 of the Act, may redetermine the assessee s taxable income, after considering the question whether the value of the cigarettes confiscated can be treated as a business loss. It is, however, evident that the said exercise shall be done by the Tribunal on the basis of the material already on record. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 10 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business, Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Perquisite

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... at money in providing, directly or indirectly, either as salary to an employee or in the provision of perquisite to an employee. Only then do the ceilings prescribed in the said sub-section come into play. It is true that in some cases this facility may be abused. We know public corporations like banks lending money to their own employees at practically no interest, say for example, one or two per cent. interest per annum, whereas those very banks lend to people at rates of interest ranging from 13 to 19 per annum. But the remedy for that must lie elsewhere, either in the proper control of the public corporations or in the amendment of the Income-tax Act, as the case may be. As the provision of law of section 40A(5) of the Act now stands, it is not possible to answer the said question in the manner suggested by the Department. Accordingly, we answer question No. 5 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 9 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal To Tribunal

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Tribunal, after reaching the conclusion that the material present was sufficient for deciding the question of registration of the firm and, therefore, no further enquiry by the Income-tax Officer was called for, it should have, accordingly, quashed the remand order made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and required the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to decide the appeal afresh on merits. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in proceeding to decide the question of registration on merits itself without the same having been decided first by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that point not having been agitated in the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in giving a finding on the merits of the case instead of remanding the case to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for decision of the case on merits. No costs.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Company, Surtax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... wer the question referred to us and remand the matter to the taxing authority through the Tribunal to determine, applying the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 559, whether the amounts credited to this account during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year was arrived at on a scientific basis, i.e., by actuarial valuation or was it an ad hoc amount and, if so, what part of these amounts credited to the said account during the relevant assessment years should be included in the capital base of the company for the purpose of surtax. It is evident that, while carrying out this direction, the taxing authority shall also have regard to the direction of the Supreme Court with respect to the assessment year 1963-64 and shall take into account the amounts, if any, which are found entitled to be credited as reserves for the said assessment year 1963-64 and for the subsequent years, if any. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Charitable Purpose, Object Of General Public Utility...

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... concerned, it is clear that the obligation under section 195 does not apply to the petitioner since he is acting as, and has been treated as, the agent of the non-resident principal. In such circumstances, the refusal to issue no objection certificate is equally unsustainable in law. In this view of the matter, we hold that the impugned order of the Income-tax Officer has been overtaken by subsequent events and that the subsequent events have made the issue raised in these writ petitions academic and of no consequence. Be that as it may, with a view to allay the apprehensions of the petitioner, it is clarified that the petitioner shall not be treated as a defaulter on account of its omission to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Income-tax Act. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. The appeals now pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) preferred by the petitioner may be disposed of expeditiously. No costs.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 6 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Income Tax Clearence Certificate

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ken into consideration the value of the entire property, though it is stated that the interest of the sisters relinquishing the property is only 3/40ths share. It is obvious that they are not concerned with the major chunk of the property and their right is restricted only to 3/40ths share and they can either transfer or relinquish to the extent of 3/40ths share only. It is only with respect to this extent that the income-tax clearance certificate can be insisted upon. It is not disputed that the valuation of this interest is only Rs. 21,775 and it does not exceed Rs. 50,000. Therefore, section 230A is not applicable and, hence, tile authorities erred in insisting upon the production of the income-tax clearance certificate. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed and the Sub-Registrar is directed to register the release deed without insisting upon the production of income-tax clearance certificate. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 5 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  

  Refund, Return

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... und should have been claimed by the petitioner-company within three years of the Act having been declared ultra vires on September 26, 1960. But the Act of 1961 received the assent of the President of India on April 6, 1961, and it provided that the Act should be deemed to have had effect on or before April 24, 1954, and should remain in force till March 31, 1962. The assessment was for the period ending December 31, 1959. Until the assessment order was set aside the period of limitation could not run and hence the question of refund being barred by limitation does not arise in this case. In the result, the impugned assessment order and the notices of demand are set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,439.86 only which was deposited by the petitioner-company in response to the impugned notice dated April 27, 1960. The petition is allowed and the rule made absolute. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. S. N. PHUKAN J. -I agree.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... sum of Rs. 33,000, mentioned in the third question, is expended on the proposed new business, it stands on the same footing as the amount concerned in the second question. For the very same reasons and in the light of the findings of the Tribunal already referred to, we answer the third question as well in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The result is that all the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs. Mr. Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel for the assessee, makes an oral request for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, so far as question No. (4) is concerned. We have answered question No. (4) against the assessee following an earlier unreported decision of this court. It is stated that against the said unreported decision, leave has been granted by this court. Accordingly, we direct the issuance of a certificate on question No. (4) mentioned above.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 3 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Depreciation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he Tribunal has not taken into consideration the circumstance that iron, lead and copper persist in the composition of molasses. Reliance has been placed in support of the submission on a book titled Cane Sugar Handbook authored by Meade Chem. In our opinion, even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that iron, lead and copper persist in the composition of molasses, it cannot be said that the machinery comes into contact with corrosive chemicals for the simple reason that it is not possible to take the view that iron, lead and copper constitute corrosive chemicals. In this view of the matter, we agree with the view taken in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. s case 1982 136 ITR 758 (P and H), and our answer to the question referred to us is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the assessee s claim of depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent. on the machinery in question. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... CIT v. Bimetal Bearings Ltd. 1977 110 ITR 131 (Mad), against the Revenue. Hence, these petitions are rejected with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 one set.

  ---

• 1987 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Registered firms within the meaning of section 2(39) - challenge of the appellants as to the legality of the interest charged by the Income-tax Officer for the delayed filing of returns and also as to the constitutional validity of sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act, as it stood before April l, 1971

  ---

1 ....89101112