Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 287 of 287 Records
-
1988 (8) TMI 8
Aluminium Industry, Appeal To Supreme Court, Mining ... ... ... ... ..... ppellants to take such proceedings as are available to them in law against him for indulging in litigation. Public funds cannot be taken away by an owner of property when the agreement-holder resorts to litigation of this nature. As for reliance placed on the decision in W. A. No. 1637 of 1987, even in the said order, it has been made clear that the directions given therein were confined to the facts of that case. Therefore, the said order could have no relevance to the claims made by the appellants herein. Hence, in matters of this nature, whenever a stay order is obtained at the instance of any of the parties to the agreement of sale and if there is any interdiction by the court preventing the authorities from pursuing further steps consequent to the issue of an order under section 269UD(1), then there would be no directive from the court to the Income-tax Department to pay the sale consideration during the pendency of proceedings in court. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
-
1988 (8) TMI 7
Double Taxation Relief, Salary, Special Deduction, Standard Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... m all the employers and the amount shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause. Accordingly, the assessee is not entitled to a separate standard deduction in respect of the salary received from each employer. Accordingly, the Tribunal s view in favour of the assessee on this point also cannot be sustained. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee as under Question No. 1. -The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under section 91(1) of the Act of the full amount of tax paid on the total foreign income in the foreign country and that the assessee is entitled to the relief under section 91(1) only of the amount of tax paid on 50 per cent. of the total foreign income. Question No. 2. -The Tribunal was not justified in holding that, under section 16(i), the assessee is entitled to standard deduction in respect of the salary received from each employer separately. No costs.
-
1988 (8) TMI 6
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... case they do not appear, the warrants shall be executed. In the event of the appearance of the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, they shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, for their appearance during the course of trial on all dates of hearing and as and when they are called upon to do so, on the following conditions (1) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required (2) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer (3) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.
-
1988 (8) TMI 5
Estate Duty, Unquoted Shares ... ... ... ... ..... 1957. But, before the Tribunal, a contention was raised that the goodwill should not be added while valuing the shares of the companies in question on break-up value method. In this court, however, the Revenue is contending that the Tribunal should have directed the valuation to be made in terms of rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. We are at a loss to understand the submission of the Revenue. If the Tribunal has decided that the Appellate Controller was right in directing adoption of rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, how could the Revenue be aggrieved against the said order ? This is one of such misconceived references brought before this court. On the facts of this case, we answer the question in this reference by saying that the method of valuation prescribed under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is to be applied for valuation of unquoted shares held by the deceased for the purpose of estate duty. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J. -I agree.
-
1988 (8) TMI 4
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e taken into account in computing the net wealth for the purpose of wealth-tax. Even assuming that no charge was created in respect of the arrear taxes, the assessee had the obligation to meet the said liability in respect of the assets inherited by him. As a matter of fact, the Revenue could claim a slice of the assets to cover the arrear taxes of the deceased. The Revenue had an overriding claim against the assets of the deceased in respect of outstanding taxes. That part of the assets required to meet the said liabilities, in our view, could not form part of the assets inherited by the assessee and they are required to be excluded before the chargeable wealth of the assessee could be computed for the relevant assessment year. On the facts of this case, the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion. For the reasons aforesaid, the question in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J. -I agree.
-
1988 (8) TMI 3
When the partner brings in additional capital in the form of shares of company, whether capital gains arise - question is answered in favour of the assessee and in the affirmative
-
1988 (8) TMI 2
Whether, the finding that it is only the capitalised value of the interest of the assessee that has to be included in the net wealth of the assessee is in law justified - however, where the true effect on the construction of the deeds is clear, as in this case, the appeal to discourage tax avoidance is not a relevant consideration. But since it was made, it has to be noted and rejected - revenue appeal is dismissed
....
|