Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1987 1987 (8) 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 281 to 291 of 291 Records

• 1987 (8) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... is neither fair nor desirable to expect the Legislature to intervene and take care of every device and scheme to avoid taxation. It is up to the court to take stock to determine the nature of the new and sophisticated legal devices to avoid tax and to expose the devices for what they really are and to refuse to give judicial benediction. I am convinced that the execution of the three separate deeds of sale is a legal device adopted by the vendors and the vendees in collusion to escape liability for the tax. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that exhibits A-3 to A-5 deeds of sale in favour of the plaintiffs in these three suits are void under section 281 of the Income-tax Act, as it stood before the amendment of 1975 and has been rightly declared so by the Income -tax Department. The finding of the court below is not liable to be impugned. The point is found against the appellants. In the result, all the three appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee one set.

  ---

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

  Exemptions, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... there is a permanent abandonment of the partnership firm carrying on business, it cannot be said that the terms of clause (xxxii) are not satisfied. As we have already pointed out, it is not possible to support the inference that the partnership firm ceased to carry on business, or that it be lame defunct, merely from the fact that it had leased out the rice mill to outsiders during the previous year. It must be said that in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, and, therefore, on the valuation date corresponding to the assessment year 1974-75, the partnership firm was an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods, so that the exemption under clause (xxxii) is available. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in granting exemption to the assessee in respect of his interest in the partnership firm. The question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.

  ---

• 1987 (8) TMI 9 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Perquisite, Reference

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 25,000 paid to M/s. Industrial Development Services Pvt. Ltd. is a revenue expenditure deductible in the computation of the assessee s total income for the assessment year 1975-76 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that cash reimbursement of expenses by the assessee could not be treated as perquisite for purpose of disallowance under section 40A(5) ? The Tribunal is directed to state a case and refer the above two questions for the decision of this court. This application is disposed of. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1987 (8) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Legal Fiction, Limitation, Reassessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... evisional order setting aside or cancelling an assessment to give effect to a finding or direction contained in that order, there would be no such time-limit for making a fresh assessment for any assessment year to give effect to a finding or direction contained in any appellate or revisional order passed in proceedings relating to any other assessment year. Such an interpretation would frustrate the object of insertion of subsection (2A) in section 153 of the Act and would also result in not giving full effect to the legal fiction introduced by Explanation 2 to section 153 of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that section 153(2A) of the Act was not attracted in the instant case. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.

  ---

• 1987 (8) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Offences And Prosecution

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 3 and 196, Indian Penal Code, by the lower appellate court, he ought to have been acquitted under section 277 of the Income-tax Act. I am unable to agree with that contention. The view that has been taken by the lower appellate court in acquitting the petitioner for the offences under sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code, is not correct. But as no appeal has been filed against that order, I do not like to interfere with that finding. Suppression of the investment or the income in the return filed by the petitioner has been done deliberately with a view to suppress the real income. I hold that an offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act has been made out. The conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act is accordingly confirmed. The petitioner is sentenced to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The revision is dismissed.

  ---

• 1987 (8) TMI 6 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Surtax Liability

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e first question is concluded in favour of the assessee by a catena of decisions taking the view that such expenditure incurred in providing soft drinks, snacks, etc., to customers is a permissible deduction not hit by section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The second question is covered by one of our recent decisions in favour of the Revenue. It has been held in D. B. 1. T. Ref. No. 67 of 1979 decided on 4-8-1987 (Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd. v. CIT 1988 170 ITR 653) that the surtax liability is a tax on profits and gains of the business and is, therefore, covered by section 40 (a) (ii) of the Act. Consequently, the reference is answered as follows 1. The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the assessee s claim for deduction of the expenses incurred in providing soft drinks, snacks and simple meals to its customers and suppliers. 2. The Tribunal was justified in holding that surtax liability is not an allowable deduction as business expenditure. No costs.

  ---

• 1987 (8) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ed herein. We have to keep the nature and stipulations of the agreement in view and decide the question of accrual of the liability. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred at the instance of the assessee in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of our answer to the question referred at the instance of the assessee, Mr. Parvatha Rao made a request that the payments made by the assessee in the subsequent assessment years shall be given deduction in the respective assessment years. He submitted that inasmuch as he was contending in this case that the entire amount should be given deduction in this assessment year alone, the assessee might not have claimed deduction of the amount paid in the subsequent assessment years. We think that the request is a legitimate one. Accordingly, we direct the authorities to verify the payment made in each of the subsequent assessment years and allow the same. No costs. Order accordingly.

  ---

• 1987 (8) TMI 4 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... usts Act squarely applies. Though the defendants have a contention that the suit is barred by limitation, it has not been shown how it is barred by limitation. The defendants held the property for the benefit of the person paying consideration and, therefore, this is a case where section 10 of the Limitation Act would also apply. The plaintiff has filed a cross-objection in A. S. No. 359 of 1985 claiming future mesne profits. In other cases, the court below has granted future mesne profits from the date of the suit till recovery of possession. In this case also, the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne profits from the date of the suit till recovery of possession. The quantum of mesne profits will be decided in proceedings in execution as in the other cases. In the result, the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. The cross-objection in A.S. No. 359 of 1985 is allowed to the above extent. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their respective costs.

  ---

• 1987 (8) TMI 3 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Arrest And Detention For Recovery Of Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 1)(a) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. As stated earlier, the appellant concealed the receipt of three lakhs rupees from the Department. His liability to pay the income-tax and wealth-tax arose not later than the close of the respective accounting years. The receipt of a substantial sum of Rs. 3,00,000 was after the liability to the Department came into existence. He failed to pay even a substantial portion of the arrears. In this view also, the learned single judge was right when he observed (at page 289 of 173 ITR) The respondents were therefore, justified in holding that there has been dishonest transfer of property and that the petitioner had also concealed details of his property from the Department and that he had not utilised the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs for payment of his tax dues. In view of the circumstances detailed above, we find no ground to interfere with the decision of the learned single judge. The appeal, therefore, fails. It is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 1987 (8) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Company, Offences And Prosecution

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... criminal court could adjourn or postpone the hearing of the case in exercise of its discretionary powers under section 309, Criminal Procedure Code, if the disposal of any proceeding under the Income-tax Act, 1961, has a bearing on the proceedings before the criminal court. However, even here, the Supreme Court has cautioned that the discretion should be judicially exercised and not in a way that would frustrate the object of the criminal proceedings. There could be no rigid rule which makes it necessary for a criminal court to adjourn or postpone the hearing of a case before it indefinitely or for an unduly long period merely because some other proceedings under the Act are pending. It, therefore, follows that merely because a petition for compounding the offences is pending before the income-tax authorities, the criminal trial could not be stayed. I am unable to accept the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. In the result, the petitions are dismissed.

  ---

• 1987 (8) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  If there has to be any exemption, or classification that necessarily must be done by the legislature and not by virtue of any power to issue exemption notification under Rule 8(1) or (2) of the Central Excise Rules

  ---

1 ....1112131415