Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1998 1998 (2) 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 481 to 492 of 492 Records

• 1998 (2) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Capital Gains, Exemption, Tax Clearence Certificate

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... refer to the other provisions of the Act as well as the Scheme. This court repeats that if a long-term capital asset is within the ceiling limit, which is below Rs. 2 lakhs at the relevant point of time and in view of repeal of section 53 by the Finance Act, 1992, with effect from April 1, 1993, there is no force in the argument of Mr. Bose and his arguments on other provisions of the Act pale into insignificance. On the consideration of the aforesaid twin postulates as mentioned hereinbefore, this court cannot but sustain the impugned order of the Appellate Authority confirming setting aside the order of the Calcutta District Forum passed on March 27, 1996, in C. D. F. Case No. 1046 of 1995. Accordingly, the revisional application fails and it stands dismissed. There is no scope for interference with the impugned order of reversal passed by the Appellate Authority. This court, accordingly, upholds the said appellate order and dismisses the revisional application on contest.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Disclosure of Information, Bar of Suits In Civil Court

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... in the order impugned in this C. R. P. It has also to be remembered that this court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, shall not take a technical view and unnecessarily interfere in every case unless grave injustice or irreparable hardship would result from failure to do so. Since section 115(1), proviso (b), of the Civil Procedure Code, makes it clear that this court in exercising its power under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, shall not vary or reverse any order made except where the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. I am not satisfied that the order under challenge if allowed to stand will result in any prejudice to the revision petitioner. At any rate, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order under challenge and accordingly the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, I make no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e Tribunal Rule 1D, Explanation II(f) of the Act is unambiguous. It clearly treats the arrears of dividends payable in respect of cumulative preference shares, as a liability for the purpose of determining the break up value under rule 1D of the Rules. Explanation II clause (ii) of rule ID states that, the following amounts shown as liabilities in the balance-sheet shall not be treated as liabilities. Sub-clause (f) under clause (ii) of Explanation II of the Rules which requires that all amounts representing contingent liabilities not be treated as liability, specifically excludes the arrears of dividends payable in respect of cumulative preference shares. The legislative intention clearly was to treat arrears of dividends payable in respect of cumulative preference shares, as a liability if so shown in the balance-sheet. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Costs of Rs. 500 to the assessee.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Appellant is a partnership firm constituted for the purpose of carrying out agricultural activities - it indulges in the activity of growing mulberry leaves and earning silk worms. The assessee purchases silk worm eggs and when they are hatched the worms are principally fed on mulberry leaves - Tribunal is justified in holding that he income derived by the assessee from the process, i.e., the rearing of silk worms, is not entitled to exemption under section 2(1)(b)(ii)

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Damodaran Nair carrying on business as an individual converted the individual business into a partnership business in which he admitted two of his nephews as partners - impugned conversion amount to Transfer within the meaning of Section 45 read with section 2(47) of the Income Tax and hence subject to capital gains - but gains u/s 45 of the IT Act has arisen

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Land on lease for carrying on excavation of minerals - whether lease rentals are revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - Prima facie, it appears that there is a conflict in the decisions of this court - question involved is of a recurring nature and it is essential that the conflict should be resolved authoritatively - We, therefore, direct that the papers of this case be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief justice for constituting a larger Bench

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Charitable Purpose - Trust Deed - Held that an irrevocable trust had been established by the partnership deed dated November 28, 1941. The objects of the trust are contained in clause (8) of the deed and, in our opinion, none of the objects contained therein can be regarded as non-charitable. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in considering the said objects and in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was a public charitable trust

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the statutory deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be calculated on the total income before deduction of the amount allowable under the section - Held, yes

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Appellant, a non-resident company having its registered office at Singapore - appellant-company owned 100 per cent. shares in a company incorporated in India - held that appellant-company is, covered b the expression "assessee or any person" in the second proviso to section 34(3).

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Assessee, a subsidiary company was closed and was transferred to holding company - Whether the payment of gratuity which the assessee-company made to Rallis India Ltd., was an allowable deduction u/s 10(2)(xv) - Held, yes - set aside the judgment of the High Court and answer the question in affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Charitable trust - Claim for exemption u/s 11(1) - assessee has applied ₹ 8 lakhs for charitable purposes in India by purchasing a building which is to be utilised as a hospital - assessee is entitled to accumulate this income and claim exemption from income-tax under section 11(1)(a).

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Revenue allege that the loan had been advanced without security, that the loan had not been repaid and no interest on the loan was paid by the assessee and that the agreement of loan was executed contemporaneously - there was no finding that amount was received as commission or business receipt - no material produced by revenue which lead to the inference that the amount was not a loan but business income - hence amount was not assessable to tax

  ---

1 ....2122232425