Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 291 of 291 Records
-
1990 (9) TMI 11
Capital Gains, Charitable Trust, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... r Kalyanji Memorial Trust, where the judgment was delivered on November 22, 1989, in favour of the Revenue holding that the advances of loan cannot be equated with acquisition of capital assets. From the facts as stated by the Tribunal it is not very clear whether the assessee advanced loans out of the income from the fixed deposits or invested the net consideration in fixed deposits and made renewals thereof. In the absence of necessary facts we are unable to answer the question in this reference. We, therefore, decline to answer this question in this reference and remand this matter to the Tribunal. We direct the Tribunal to rehear the appeal afresh-after giving the parties opportunity to lead fresh evidence. The Tribunal will examine the applicability of the said circular and the judgment of this court in Damodar Kalyanji Memorial Trust in deciding the appeal. Leave is given to file vakalatnama within one week after the long vacation. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (9) TMI 10
Collection Charges, Deduction, Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... ouse property so long as such expenditure is intimately connected with the collection. The nature and character of the expenditure will determine whether such expenditure would come within the purview of collection, charges. In our view, so long as the expenditure is within the ceiling prescribed by section 24(1)(viii), there is no reason to disallow any part of such expenditure, whether such expenditure is made by appointing any employee to collect the rent, or by paying commission to a broker in the induction of a tenant or for securing fair and reasonable rent or normal rent in respect of the house which is assessable to tax under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is not in dispute in this case that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was within the permissible limit. 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. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (9) TMI 9
Business Expenditure, Company, Disallowance, Salary ... ... ... ... ..... ernment did not approve the appointment of the managing director. In the meantime the managing director rendered services for which remuneration was paid. Accordingly, the actual salary paid for the services rendered by the managing director cannot be disallowed on the ground that the Central Government did not approve his appointment. If one has been rightly or wrongly appointed and such appointment is dependent on the Central Government, remuneration for the services rendered between the time of appointment and the date when the approval was refused cannot be denied to such employee who discharged his duties and responsibilities as the managing director of the company. We are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the actual salary paid to the managing director. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the second question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (9) TMI 8
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the interest payable under the U. P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, for the assessee's failure to pay the cane cess and purchase tax - held that Interest paid on delayed payment of cane cess and purchase tax is allowable as a business expenditure.
-
1990 (9) TMI 7
HUF, Partition - whether the partition and also the decree of the civil court amount to "partition" under the Explanation to section 171 and further whether the Income-tax Officer acted contrary to law in holding that, in spite of the partition as alleged by the respondent, the status of a Hindu undivided family was not disrupted and that that status continued for the purposes of assessment during the relevant assessment years
-
1990 (9) TMI 6
In appeal before AAC, assessee raised additional ground for deduction of purchase tax - AAC had jurisdiction to permit assessee to raise such additional ground
-
1990 (9) TMI 5
Assessee purchased securities - It is contended that the price paid for the securities was determined with reference to their actual value as well as the interest which had accrued on them till the date of purchase - amounts claimed by the assessee as deduction are not shown to have been expended for the purpose of realising the interest and are, therefore, not allowable as deductible expenditure.
-
1990 (9) TMI 4
Donations in Kind to Charitable Institution - benefit of section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the donations - After the insertion of the Explanation 5, there cannot be any doubt that, for purposes of claiming deduction, only cash amounts which may have been donated would be taken into account. No doubt this provision is not retrospective in nature; none the less it indicates the legislative intent behind section 80G(2)(a) even prior to its amendment.
-
1990 (9) TMI 3
Whether, the preservation by refrigeration in cold storage of potatoes is a 'process' ordinarily employed by a cultivator within the meaning of sections 2(1)(b)(ii) and 2(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Tribunal is directed to state a case and refer the above question of law for the opinion of the High Court
-
1990 (9) TMI 2
Explanation To section 271(1)(c) - assessee filed revised returns disclosing larger incomes - assessee not discharged onus of proof - penalty was justified - High Court's decision that difference between tax on income returned in original returns and tax on assessed incomes, should be the amount of tax evaded, is totally justified
-
1990 (9) TMI 1
Whether, on the amalgamation of the Indian Sugar Company with the appellant-company, the Indian Sugar Company continued to have its identity and was alive for the purposes of section 41(1) of the Act?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. When two companies amalgamate and merge into one, the transferor-company loses its entity as it ceases to have its business. However, their respective rights and liabilities are determined under the scheme of amalgamation but the corporate entity of the transferor-company ceases to exist with effect from the date the amalgamation is made effective. We agree with the Tribunal's view that the amalgamating company ceased to exist in the eye of law and therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay tax on the amount of ₹ 58,735. Thus set aside the order of the High Court and answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
....
|