|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 508 of 508 Records
-
1998 (7) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Export Markets Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ile staying away from the headquarters before completing the route which brings the person back to the place that he started from. Our answer to the second question raised at the instance of the assessee also has to be against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. As regards the third question it is also answered against the assessee, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P.) Ltd. 1996 219 ITR 644, wherein the Supreme Court held the payment of cash allowances, even if it be as reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the assessee such as medical expenditure is not to be treated as perquisite but it should be treated as part of salary to which section 40(c) of the Act would be applicable. That is what the Tribunal has held and we see no error in that finding. The answer to all the three questions referred to us are in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue shall be entitled to costs of Rs. 750.
-
1998 (7) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Purposes, Charitable Trust, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... Constitution Bench has been reiterated by the later decision by the apex court, recently, in the case of Thiagarajar Charities v. Addl. CIT 1997 225 ITR 1010. It is not the case of the Revenue that the objects of the trust are not charitable. The only ground on which the exemption was denied by the Assessing Officer was that the trust had entered into an agreement with one Vijayalakshmi Pictures and that agreement resulted in the trust undertaking a business activity. As held by the apex court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association 1980 121 ITR 1 and in the case of Thiagarajar Charities v. Addl. CIT 1997 225 ITR 1010 (SC), carrying on business by a trust alone, would not render the trust ineligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. The questions referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue, are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee shall be entitled to cost in the sum of Rs. 1,000.
-
1998 (7) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income From Other Sources, Cost Of Contruction ... ... ... ... ..... was recorded in the assessee s books. The Tribunal has not found that the books maintained by the assessee are not credible. In fact the Tribunal has not expressed opinion on the correctness of the entries in the assessee s books. Though in the order initially made, the Tribunal found fault with the assessee for not having produced the agreement with the contractor, after the assessee pointed out that the agreement that had been entered into with the contractor had been produced before the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal made a further order refusing to reconsider its earlier order but at the same time asserting that the rates as set out in the agreement had been adopted by the Tribunal in determining the value of the building. In the circumstances, we must hold that the Tribunal was not right in not accepting the value of Rs. 2,16,586. The question is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to Rs. 1,000 as costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company ... ... ... ... ..... behalf would equally have been subject to the ceiling in section 40(c)(iii). Suppose, in another case, a house owned by the assessee (furnished and maintained by the assessee) is similarly placed in the possession and enjoyment of the employee and the assessee took on rent an air-conditioner and installed it in the said house, the whole expenditure would have been subject to the ceiling in section 40(c) (iii) ... Following the abovesaid decision of the apex court and this court we hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company by way of property tax and urban land tax should not be considered for the purpose of disallowance under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and maintenance alone can be included for the purpose of disallowance under the said Act. We accordingly answer the question referred to us in the manner set out above in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in C. W. S. (India) Ltd. v. CIT 1994 208 ITR 649 referred to above. No costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income, Trade Mark ... ... ... ... ..... he mark in the territories for which it had granted licence, the monies realised by it would certainly have been of revenue character. By agreeing to receive a lump sum for the exploitation of that mark in the limited areas over a specified period and receiving that amount in advance would not be sufficient to convert what is otherwise a revenue receipt into a capital receipt. The manner of exploitation of the mark owned by the assessee does not make any difference to the character of the amount realised by the assessee by reason of the exploitation of that mark so long as it continues to remain the owner of the trade mark. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the sum of Rs. 50,000 paid by T. I. Miller Limited to the assessee was a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee and not a revenue receipt. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
-
1998 (7) TMI 3 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ribunal is that since the Department has not acted upon the inaccurate returns filed, the assessee is exonerated from the levy of penalty. This reasoning of the Tribunal appears to us to be erroneous on the simple ground that so far as the assessee is concerned, he had filed a return on the basis of a forged certificate, exhibit P-5. Simply because the Department was vigilant and it summoned the original record of the Excise Department and determined the correct income of the assessee, the assessee cannot escape the fact of deliberate attempt to mislead the Department. Mens rea on his part is complete when he concealed the true income and gave a false income and tried to mislead the Department by filing the forged certificate exhibit P-5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the levy of penalty in the present case is fully justified and the view taken by the Tribunal on the face of it is erroneous. Hence, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Registered public trust - To get the benefit of section 12(1), the assessee was required to show that the voluntary contribution which it had received was applicable solely for religious or charitable purposes - ITAT & HC are justified in holding that the voluntary contribution amounting to Rs. 4,55,000 was not applied and was not wholly applicable for religious or charitable purposes. In this view of the matter, the assessee, on the facts of the present case, cannot get the benefit of s. 12(1)
-
1998 (7) TMI 1 - COMMISSIONER APPEAL
Service Tax – (1) Telegraph authority towards SIM card (2) Amount received by company (3) Demand and Limitation (4) Service tax is new concept (5) Penalty not imposable
....
|
