Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1989 1989 (3) 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 261 to 276 of 276 Records

• 1989 (3) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Capital Gains, Deduction U/S 80T, Precedents

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... in the Fifth Schedule. Therefore, the assessee cannot derive any support from the principles laid down in the case of Canara Workshops P. Ltd. 1986 161 ITR 320 (SC). Computation of income, under the Income-tax Act will have to be done, in the instant case, under the head Capital gains and all the deductions and allowances will have to be allowed. All adjustments of losses will have to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act for the purpose of arriving at the gross total income as defined in section 80B. It is only that part of the income which has been included in the gross total income which will be the basis for computation of the relief claimed by the assessee under section 80T. Therefore, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate for the assessee prayed for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. Such prayer is refused. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s would not lead to the conclusion of falsity in the accounts. It further observed that in the assessments the accounts were rejected and the business income was estimated on the basis of past records but no fraud, gross or wilful neglect could be attributed to the assessee in not returning the correct income and thus the penalty order could not be sustained. It has not been shown before us what material the Tribunal has not taken into account in coming to its decision. There cannot be any question of perversity in a case like this. It is not a case of misdirection in law by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that mere erasures or mistakes in the accounts could not lead to the inference that the accounts were manufactured. Under the circumstances, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Advance Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rst sale at the higher rate. Efforts on the part of the purchasers to resist the rise in price could not be ruled out. An assessee was required to make an honest estimate having regard to the conditions and circumstances as on the date of the estimate. On the facts of this case, the estimate made by the assessee could not be said to be untrue to the knowledge or belief of the assessee. The penalty order was not sustainable and was, accordingly, cancelled. Whether the estimate made by the assessee was bona fide or true to his knowledge or not is a question of fact. The Tribunal has referred to all the facts that were brought on record. The decision of the Tribunal cannot be held to be perverse. The Tribunal has considered all the facts brought to its notice by the Department as well as the assessee. Under these circumstances, both the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Depreciation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... and the determination of that expression requires a long-drawn process of reasoning. We find ourselves in agreement with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the mistake, if any, is not an obvious or a patent one and the point in controversy is a debatable one. It is a well-settled principle of law that if, on a question of construction on a point of law, two views are possible, then the view which is in favour of the assessee has to be taken and, therefore, no rectification can be done by invoking section 154. The Supreme Court, in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. 1971 82 ITR 50, and also a number of other cases, has expressed the above view. In that view of the matter and following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in that judgment, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The reference is finally disposed of without the paper book. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty, Exemptions, Gift

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ephew of the deceased. The Appellate Controller took the view that it was unlikely that the deceased would live in the house. The Appellate Controller rejected the case of the accountable person. The accountable person went up in appeal before the Tribunal before whom it was contended that the house was kept reserved for use and the word use in section 33(1)(n) included a house which was kept reserved for use and it was exempt under the said section. The Departmental representative relied upon the orders of the Appellate Controller and the Assistant Controller. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the accountable person and excluded the sum of Rs. 35,000 from the computation of the value of the estate. In our opinion, there is hardly any merit in the question raised. On an appreciation of all the facts, the Tribunal came to a reasonable conclusion. Hence, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Previous Year

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tax pending disposal of the application before the Settlement Commission. Notice has been taken on behalf of the respondents and both sides are heard. The pendency of the application before the Settlement Commission does not operate as a stay of collection. The liability as per the assessments subsists. There is, therefore, no illegality in issuing the demand and the challenge against the same is not sustainable. The only relief the petitioner is entitled to in the circumstances of the case is regarding the mode of payment of the arrears of tax. In the light of the submissions made and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it proper to direct the petitioner to pay 50 per cent. of the arrears demanded within six weeks from this date and the balance within a further period of three months. Subject to this condition, further steps in pursuance of the demand are to be kept in abeyance. The original petition is disposed of with the above directions.

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Firm, Reference, Registration, Sub-Partnership

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... mployed by the Legislature is clear. The generation or distribution of electricity has been used disjunctively in the first part of the definition. In the latter part of the definition, manufacture or processing of goods have also been used disjunctively. The plain meaning of the words must override any supposed intendment of the Legislature. In the case of Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Rossminster Ltd. 1979 52 TC 160, 209 (HL). Lord Salmon observed However much the courts may deprecate an Act, they must apply it. It is not possible by torturing its language or by any other means to construe it so as to give it a meaning which Parliament clearly did not intend it to bear. It is not necessary to refer to any other judgment in view of the pronouncements of this court in the case of G. A. Renderian Ltd. v. CIT 1984 145 ITR 387. The question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Benami Transaction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... This is the only way to construe the above provision. Otherwise, the very intendment behind the attention has been drawn to a pronouncement of a single judge of the High Court of Kerala in Velayudhan v. Rajeev 1988 174 ITR 482 and the question has also gone before the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare 1989 177 ITR 97 (SC). The Supreme Court opined that the expression shall lie in section 4(1) shall apply to present (future stages), and future suits, claims or actions only. The Supreme Court also held, after referring to various pronouncements, that an appeal is a rehearing of the suit. Such being the position under and implications of the provisions of the Act, I do not think that the plaintiffs could be permitted to advance the plea based on benami in the present second appeal. This is a legal hurdle which they cannot get over. In this view, this second appeal deserves dismissal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... it of composition and we, therefore, consider it unnecessary to make any reference to the provisions in the other enactments or the cases thereon. We hold that the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax was right in the view he took that as the petitioners did not hold lands individually, but had held only proportionate shares in the lands held by the firms, they are not entitled to the benefit of composition. We are of the view that the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax had neither rendered an erroneous decision on a question of law nor even failed to decide such a question. We, therefore, dismiss these tax (revision) cases. After we pronounced the order, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. A. Balasubramaniam, made an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are of the view that there is no substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. We, therefore, reject the oral application for leave.

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that the assessee appealed on the basis of the records of the case and in that view of the matter it set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the basis of a rectification petition and directed the Income-tax Officer to make an enquiry in the matter after giving an opportunity to the assessee and that the assessing Income-tax Officer should consider afresh the includibility or otherwise of the amount in question in the total income of the assessee after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This is entirely a new order which actually refers to the earlier order passed. In fact the findings of fact made in the parent order and the rectification order are self-contradictory. Under these circumstances, question No. 1 raised must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Pension, Salary

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... or drawing the pension . Every assessee may not have to do this. But the Legislature has evolved a formula which is to be applied irrespective of the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee. Our attention was drawn to a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Saroop Krishan 1985 153 ITR 1 (P and H). We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed in that judgment. The point taken about the employer-employee relationship by the Income-tax Officer is also of no substance. The assessee is getting pension because, under the terms and conditions of his employment, he was entitled to get pension. Because he was actually employed by the Government, he was given salary, pension, gratuity and other benefits. The pension is given because the terms of employment provided for payment of such pension. The question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Business Expenditure - assessee, a company engaged in the manufacture of antibiotics (penicillin) and pharmaceuticals was granted a licence for the manufacture - lump sum expenditure on acquisition of know-how for higher yield of penicillin - such expenditure is revenue in nature hence deductible as business expenditure

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Trust - Income from other Sources - Interest On Borrowed Money - held that interest on borrowings is not allowable to the extent borrowings relate to personal expenses - held that beneficiary is to be assessed on real income received by trust

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Relinquishment - Capital Gains - Tribunal held that the transaction represented neither an exchange nor a relinquishment and, therefore, section 12B of the Act was not attracted - On the question whether there was any relinquishment, the decision must again be against the Revenue. A relinquishment takes place when the owner withdraws himself from the property and abandons his rights thereto. It presumes that the property continues to exist after the relinquishment

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Development Rebate - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of carry forward of development rebate -Whether Tribunal was justified in directing that the Income-tax Officer should determine the development rebate and such development rebate should be allowed to be carried forward and set off when profits are available and if, in that year, the assessee fulfils the necessary requirements for such allowance like creation of adequate reserve

  ---

• 1989 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Revision application under s. 25(1) before CIT contesting AAC's order who allowed partly relief to assessee - department appeal pending before tribunal - In the meantime Tribunal dismissed department's appeal and CIT rejected assessee's revision appeal as incompetent - revision order is infructuous and is liable to be dismissed

  ---

1 ....1011121314