Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 190 of 190 Records
-
1989 (10) TMI 10
Business Expenditure, Capital Gains, Income, Rubber Estate, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... sessee. Next, we are concerned with the fourth and the last question referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The only aspect that arises therein is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of the surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, in computing the business profit of the company. This has been held to be not a permissible deduction by Full Bench of this court in A. V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 159 ITR 431 FB . In the light of the Full Bench decision of this court, we hold that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction of the surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, in computing the business profit of the company. We answer this question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The two references are answered as above. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (10) TMI 9
Tamil Nadu Amendment Of Indian Stamp Act ... ... ... ... ..... s that the amendments effected are far short of the loopholes which require to be plugged, and more rigorous comprehensive legislation than enacted in Delhi and Maharashtra is required to be enacted expeditiously without any power of exemption in the Government to relax any of those provisions under any circumstances. Hence such of those writ petitions in which the only relief claimed is for declaring the impugned provisions in the Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987 illegal and invalid is concerned are dismissed. Such of those writ petitions where, apart from this relief, a prayer for quashing the circular dated December 9, 1988, of the Inspector-General of Registration is concerned is made are partly allowed. The other writ petitions in which the only prayer is to quash the said circular dated December 9, 1988, are allowed. Dependent upon the nature of the reliefs prayed for in each writ petition, with the directions above given, each writ petition is, accordingly, ordered. No costs.
-
1989 (10) TMI 8
Excise Duty, Procedure For Appeal Agianst Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... titioner shall not be reduced to the extent of the amount of interest that may be paid by the petitioner. Subject to the aforesaid condition, it is directed that the ad interim relief granted by this court on January 24, 1989, shall remain in operation upto December 18, 1989. However, if the petitioner does not make payment of the amount of interest as indicated hereinabove, this direction by which the ad interim relief granted earlier by order dated January 24, 1989, is kept in abeyance up to December 18, 1989, shall stand automatically vacated. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent No. 2 herein, i.e., the Registrar, Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. Subject to the aforesaid observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. Ad interim relief stands rejected. However, if the direction given hereinabove is complied with, order vacating ad interim relief shall remain in abeyance up to December, 1989. Order accordingly.
-
1989 (10) TMI 7
Life Insurance Corporation, Salary ... ... ... ... ..... n. The matter requires a more careful analysis and appraisal, bearing in mind the salient features stated above. In all the circumstances of the case, we decline to answer the questions referred to us. At the same time, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeals to file and decide the question afresh, in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. It is only fair that, in the light of the conflicting decisions of the various Benches, a larger Bench is constituted to resolve the controversy and appropriate documents, inclusive of the order of appointment of the Development Officers, the nature of their duties, their salary and the basis for payment of incentive bonus, etc., are properly evaluated before a final decision is rendered in the matter. The references are disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1989 (10) TMI 6
... ... ... ... ..... unal to refer two questions of law in relation to the valuation of the cinema building of Prem Prakash Talkies. Since the valuation of Prem Prakash Talkies in the assessment year 1979-80 would be dependent on the valuation of the said property in the year 1974-75 and that matter is under consideration before this court, we consider it fit and proper to allow this application and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up the statement of case and refer the following question of law for the consideration of this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) whereby he directed the Wealth-tax Officer to take valuation of Prem Prakash Cinema as on Diwali 1978 at Rs. 34,07,839 for the purpose of determining the assessee s interest in the firm, Messrs. S. Zoraster and Company, after allowing deduction as per rule 2F of the Wealth-tax Rules ? No order as to costs.
-
1989 (10) TMI 5
Actual Cost, Business Expenditure, Depreciation, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... l. In our opinion, the question whether the said expenses are disallowable under sub-section (4) of section 37 of the Act is an independent question which cannot be said to arise out of the matter which has been considered by the Tribunal relating to the applicability of sub-section (2B) of section 37 of the Act. The said question cannot, therefore, be gone into while dealing with question No. 2 which has been referred to this court. Question No. 2 is in the same terms as question No. 2 which was considered by this court in its decision dated January 27, 1987, in D. B. I. T. Ref. No. 99 of 1979 and, for the reasons given in the said decision, the said question must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the result, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue and questions Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1989 (10) TMI 4
Search And Seizure, Summary Assessment, Survey, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... authority, no one has a right to interfere in their performance of duty or create hurdles or humiliate or manhandle them. Any such action cannot be appreciated and is to be deprecated and persons taking the law into their hands or committing guilt deserve the prescribed punishment. But at the same time, it is the duty of the officers to see that they act in accordance with law, shorn of all feeling of vindictiveness or ego and in good faith which protects them and grants them full immunity even from any legal action. In view of the above, Writ Petition No. 6218 of 1987 is dismissed as infructuous as some of the reliefs are common to the second writ petition, viz., Writ Petition No. 22 of 1988. Writ Petition No. 22 of 1988 is hereby allowed and the order under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, passed in respect of the petitioner s shop, is quashed. However, it will be open for the income-tax authorities to proceed in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (10) TMI 3
"Profits" In Rule 19(5), Appeal To AAC, Change Of Law, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction
-
1989 (10) TMI 2
Husband and wife are partners in a firm when wife's share is included in husband's total income under s.64(1)(i) - Whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward to subsequent years not only his share of loss but also the share of loss of his wife from the firm - question answered in the affirmative
-
1989 (10) TMI 1
Orders made by the CBDT, declining to waive the demand of interest made by the ITO, u/s 220(2) - Notice was issued in the special leave petitions confined to the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the Board declined to exercise its power - personal representation before Board is not necessary - Since SLP was pending for more than two years petitioner would be prejudiced, if it was required to move HC first - therefore SLP is dismissed
....
|