Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1994 1994 (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 221 to 228 of 228 Records

• 1994 (8) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Inclusions In Total Income

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Manilal Dhanji 1962 44 ITR 876 was not taken into consideration in CWT v. Seth Yogindraprasad N. Mafatlal 1988 170 ITR 648 (Bom). This decision proceeds on the basis of the assumption that the trust was for the benefit of the minor daughter. The position in the instant case is different. A plain reading of the trust deed in the instant case would go to show that the benefit was not given to the minor during his minority. But the benefit was given to the major son. If that is so, the provisions of section 64(1)(v) of the Act would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. So, even on the facts and in accordance with law, the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the income arising out of the shares belonging to the trust in the hands of the assessee, who is the father of the minor, is in order. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000.

  ---

• 1994 (8) TMI 8 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment, Question Of Law

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... error which is discovered on a reconsideration of some material was held to be not giving jurisdiction to the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment. From the above proposition of law, it has to be seen whether the audit party was merely a communicator and has drawn the attention of the Income-tax Officer or any information has come in the possession of the Income-tax Officer. The question which has been raised, therefore, is a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the above two questions of law. At the time of disposal of the said reference, it will be considered if the information was already in the possession of the Department and there was failure on the part of the Income-tax Officer to levy the correct amount of tax in accordance with law, and as to whether he can be made personally responsible for the loss caused to the Revenue. The reference application is accordingly allowed.

  ---

• 1994 (8) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Question Of Fact

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ed was already referred to the High Court by the Tribunal. In computing the income of the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed an expenditure of Rs. 24,15,515 representing the expenditure in respect of social overheads. However, on appeal by the assessee, the appellate authority allowed the expenditure. This order of the appellate authority was confirmed by the Tribunal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the disallowance of the expenditure is a question of fact and in our view no referable question of law arises in this case. In this view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal for issuing the directions prayed for. The income-tax case is, therefore, dismissed.

  ---

• 1994 (8) TMI 6 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Undisclosed Sources

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... were borrowed and advanced by the assessee-company. In Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT 1975 99 ITR 375, this court held that the Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry and that it is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. It is incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return, when circumstances would make such an inquiry prudent and the word erroneous in section 263 includes the failure to make such an enquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. Consequently, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1994 (8) TMI 5 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Application For Rectification, Application For Reference, Chit Fund, Question Of Law, Rectification Of Mistakes

  ---

• 1994 (8) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Income Of HUF, Individual Income

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of personal service that would not change the character of the income. We do not find any error in the approach of the Appellate Tribunal. The finding is fully justified in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in P. N. Krishna Iyer v. CIT 1969 73 ITR 539. The relevant test had been propounded by the Supreme Court at page 545 as follows Income received by a member of a Hindu undivided family from a firm or a company in which the funds of the Hindu undivided family are invested, even though the income may be partially traceable to personal exertion of the member, is taxable as the income of the Hindu undivided family, if it is earned by detriment to the family funds or with the aid or assistance of those funds otherwise it is taxable as the members separate income. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.

  ---

• 1994 (8) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Provision For Gratuity, Quoted Equity Shares, Supreme Court, Tax Deducted At Source

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s. Sub-clause (f) of clause (ii) to Explanation II under rule 1D also prohibits any amount representing contingent liabilities appearing in the balance-sheet for deduction from the value of assets shown in the balance-sheet in determining the value of the unquoted shares of a company. In view of the above, it is held that a liability and/or debt owed which is in the nature of a contingent one is not a permissible deduction from the aggregate value of the assets in both the cases either in determining the net wealth of an assessee within the meaning of section 2(m) or in determining the value of unquoted shares of a company within the meaning of rule 1D. So far as the years other than 1979-80 are concerned, the said question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 2 This question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Under the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. MUKUL GOPAL MUKERJI J. --- I agree.

  ---

• 1994 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the rental income derived by the assessee was assessable in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources under section 56

  ---

1 ....89101112