Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1996 1996 (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 401 to 408 of 408 Records

• 1996 (8) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  HUF Property

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rty of rupees four lakhs with the character of joint family property as on that date. Therefore, the decision reported in R. Subramania Iyer v. CIT 1955 28 ITR 352 (Mad), will not be applicable to the facts of this case. Inasmuch as on an appraisal of the facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee impressed his individual property with that of the character of the joint family property as on September 30, 1969, by a declaration made by him we do not want to come to a different conclusion, on a reappraisal of the same facts. Accordingly, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in directing the assessing authority to exclude a sum of Rs. 48,000 from the income-tax assessment and so also directing the assessing authority to exclude a sum of rupees four lakhs while ascertaining the net wealth of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.

  ---

• 1996 (8) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Wealth Tax, Reference, Reassessment, Underassessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... -disclosure of true and correct facts. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer acquired jurisdiction to reopen the assessment order and the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be unjustified. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that a statement of case be called from the Tribunal on the following questions (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no underassessment in terms of section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in taking action under section 17 when there was admittedly under-valuation of gold as on relevant valuation dates? Any observation made in this order will not prejudice the rights of the parties before any court or authority. All the aforesaid seven references are accordingly disposed of.

  ---

• 1996 (8) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Weighted Deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the services rendered by the local agents would go to show that the expenditure incurred by way of commission payment would fall under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of section 35B(1)(b) of the Act. On a similar set of facts, in T. C. No. 1126 of 1984 in the case of CIT v. Farida Prime Tannery 1998 231 ITR 233 (Mad), by our judgment of even date (August 13, 1996), we held, following various decisions on this aspect, that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act in respect of the commission payment made to the local agents of the foreign buyers irrespective of the fact that the commission was paid in India. By following the decision in our judgment in P. C. No. 1126 of 1984-CIT v. Farida Prime Tannery 1998 231 ITR 233 we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect in the present case also. Accordingly, we answer the first part of the second question in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.

  ---

• 1996 (8) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... orporation ? In so far as the first point is concerned, learned standing counsel represented that the question relating to the said point is not pressed. In so far as the second point is concerned, various High Courts held that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of the premium paid to the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation in CIT v. Navabharat Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (No. 1) 1988 170 ITR 526 (AP) the Karnataka in the case of CIT v. J. B. Advani and Co. (Mysore) (Private) Ltd. 1987 163 ITR 638 the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. 1992 196 ITR 912 (Delhi) in the case of CIT v. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. (No. 2) 1990 184 ITR 587 (Delhi) in the case of CIT v. Alleppey Co. Ltd. 1994 207 ITR 598(Ker). Accordingly, we return the question unanswered in so far as the first point is concerned. In so far as the second point is concerned, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department.

  ---

• 1996 (8) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... changed after the judgment in T.C. No.1117 of 1984, and the petitioner has no right to claim the refund or the interest on the basis of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, which has no legal existence in view of the answers rendered by this court to the questions of law referred in the department s reference. In other words, once the foundation on which the claim for refund was made his disappeared by reason of the judgment of this court in T.C. No.1117 of 1984, the claim of the petitioner also must share the same fate. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the refund of Rs.1,90,186 or the interest thereon on the basis of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which has no legal force after the judgment in T.C. No.1117 of l984. Accordingly, this court holds that the writ petition has no merit due to the change in circumstances created by the fluctuating fortunes of litigation Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

  ---

• 1996 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Assessees were allotted certain assets and liabilities on a partial partition of HUF - Tribunal was right in holding that a part of the interest in respect of amounts due to unsecured creditors should not be allowed either by way of any overriding title or otherwise - Tribunal was right in holding that such interest as was disallowed was not admissible deduction u/s 12(2) - Tribunal was right in holding that the said interest should not be taken into account in determining the real income

  ---

• 1996 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts received by the assessee by way of under-charges, do not constitute its trading receipts and that accordingly neither the surplus of the receipts remaining unpaid nor the amounts transferred by the assessee to the profit and loss account could be assessed as the income of the assessee

  ---

• 1996 (8) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT GAUHATI
  

  Central Excise – Provisional assessment – At the time of making final assessment under Rule 173-I ibid, Department would have to comply with Natural justice and quantify the amount of Excise duty due from the assessee, independent of provisions of Section 11A ibid.

  ---

1 ....1718192021