|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 445 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the court cannot be frustrated. If one does so and allow the time to expire it will definitely be cause of judicial scrutiny. Therefore taking into totality of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition by treating as on day s list as motion adjourned by declaring that in case of issuance of PAN number and card the maximum period is three (3) months from the date of application. There will be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been used by the respondents allegations, if any, contained in the application are deemed to have not admitted by them. Let xeroxed certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties by the Department within seven days from the date of putting in requisition for drawing up and completion of the order as well as the certified copy thereof. All parties are to act on a xeroxed signed copy minutes of the operative part of this judgment upon usual undertaking and as per the satisfaction of the officer of this court in respect as above.
-
2001 (12) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of a capital nature on scientific research related to the business carried on by the assessee, such deduction as may be admissible under the provisions of sub-section (2) shall be allowed. Section 35(2)(ia) provides that in a case where such capital expenditure is incurred after March 31, 1967, the whole of such capital expenditure incurred in any previous year shall be deducted for that previous year. The section refers only to capital expenditure and does not further require that the asset brought into existence by incurring such expenditure should have been complete in all respects. The deduction is for the expenditure to the extent incurred. Expenditure incurred on on-going construction of a building designed for housing the research wing is clearly capital expenditure and is deductible under this provision. The question referred to us is therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs.1,500.
-
2001 (12) TMI 43 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 61. Of course, there is a provision of sub-section (5) which is quoted below (5) Where the assessee is a person other than a company or a co-operative society, the deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the industrial undertaking or the business of the hotel for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288 and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant. That will not help the Revenue in this case as in this case the assessee is a company. Regarding the second question already as indicated above, we have decided it against the Revenue. In that view of the matter, this appeal shall stand dismissed. Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, the learned advocate for the appellant, and none appears for the respondent.
-
2001 (12) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sing the penalty had before him and if that record can sustain the finding that there had been concealment, that would be sufficient to sustain the penalty. The fact that the authorities were unable to secure a conviction in a prosecution subsequently launched, does not alter the record the Assessing Officer had before him and which record is what the appellate authority is required to peruse for the purpose of deciding as to whether the penalty was or was not warranted. The Tribunal was, therefore, not in error in upholding the penalty that had been levied under section 271(1)(c) on the assessee. The question referred to us, viz., Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was leviable on the ground that the revised return was not voluntary despite the finding by the magistrate that the revised return was voluntary? is therefore answered against the assessee in favour of the Revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 41 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he facts of each case will have to be proved on their own. For this very reason, the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that on the finding of facts the Tribunal is the final authority, recedes to the background. Also, we are not required to examine the scope of the applicability of the Explanation to section 37 of the Act, which has been given retrospective effect from April 1, 1962. On the material placed before the court and in the light of the question that is posed, we have no hesitation and clearly hold that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the items of expenditure are allowable as deductible expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. The material before the court is sufficient to hold that it is in fact not an expenditure as has been proved under section 37(1) of the Act for claiming deduction and as such the question is answered in the negative and against the assessee. Thus, the Revenue succeeds in the reference. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 40 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... des or corrupt practice on the part of the Income-tax Department. In the said circumstances, I am not inclined to refer to the various reports and the books on corruption in these proceedings. The petitioner had also not furnished any concrete materials in support of his allegations. In the above circumstances, the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (see 2001 248 ITR 366), mentioned above squarely applies. In that decision it was observed that public interest litigation is a legal technique, a responsible technique which could be resorted to only by a bona fide public character surcharged only by public interest and nothing else. It was also stated that under the garb of public interest litigation no person can be permitted to abuse the process of law and waste judicial time. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in this original petition. It is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r section 11 of the Act. The said fact has also not been taken into consideration. Having regard to the orders passed subsequently, namely, appeals in relation to the assessment year 1997-98 having been allowed, the impugned order must be set aside. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained, inasmuch as the grounds on the basis whereof the impugned order has been passed do not have any factual basis and, thus, must be held to be perverse. The view taken by the Commissioner cannot be said to be justified on the material on record. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The Commissioner is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of continuation of approval under section 80G(5) of the Act afresh, as expeditiously as practicable but not later than eight weeks from the date of the order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... kes it clear that the right of pre-emptive purchase has to be exercised by the appropriate authority only when it has good reason for acquiring the property. Therefore, unless the authorities come to the conclusion that there are good reasons for acquiring the property , the property may not be acquired by the Department. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the second prayer cannot be complied with. In the order passed by this court, it has been stated that there is no necessity to implead the Income-tax Department and counsel says that the Income tax Department shall be impleaded as a party. This is not an apparent mistake on the face of the record and, hence, the order in this respect cannot be modified. If the parties feel that this order is erroneous, they are always at liberty to proceed with the appeal. Jurisdiction under review is very limited and this court cannot modify the order already passed. The petition is ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urpose of manufacturing the tools and dies. The assessee s claim for the investment allowance on tools and dies, which it, had manufactured and after such manufacture had capitalised has been allowed by the Tribunal. The assessee cannot claim investment allowance on the machinery with the aid of which the product was manufactured as also on the product so manufactured when it puts that product to use for the manufacture of yet other products. We uphold the order of the Tribunal only subject to the clarification that the allowance sought by the assessee is to be granted subject to such allowance not having been granted on the machine with the aid of which the tools and dies were manufactured. So far as the second question is concerned, the Tribunal, on the facts of the case, has recorded that the assessee had created adequate reserve and had debited the same to the profit and loss account. The question is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 36 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fact before the donors while inviting donations. It also ensures that the donors who are in no way connected with the trust are assured that they do not suffer any disallowance in their respective assessments. This practice is demonstrated by way of illustration during the course of the hearing, by placing on record certificate dated November 2, 2001, issued by the respondent to the petitioner-trust for the period from April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2003. In view of what is stated hereinbefore and in light of the ratio of the decision of this court in the case of N.N. Desai Charitable Trust 2000 246 ITR 452, this petition is required to be allowed. The order dated April 16, 2001, passed by the respondent is quashed and set aside and the respondent is directed to grant renewal to the petitioner-trust under section 80G(5) of the Act for the period from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, immediately. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion v. CIT 2000 242 ITR 623 (Karn). In our view, the facts of that case can be distinguished from the facts of the present case. In that decision the question was whether the conveyance allowance which was paid to the employees who owned two wheelers, could be included within the calculation for disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act. In the present case we are not concerned with Explanation (c)(ii) of section 37(3B) of the Act which was under consideration before the Karnataka High Court. In the present case, we are concerned with Explanation (c)(ii) which deals with expenditure for hire charges of motor cars (metered taxies) plying for hire. Therefore, we do not find any reason to apply the principles laid down in the Karnataka High Court decision in the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs. ASIT KUMAR BISI J.-I agree.
-
2001 (12) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ome-tax Act. It is to be borne in mind in this context that the sales-tax, octroi and excise duties are levied under the separate enactments which have different objects and as such the general definition of the word turnover or the case law dealing with the said definition under the Sales Tax Act can in no way be imported into section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act with which we are presently concerned. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that octroi, sales tax and excise duty should be excluded from the figure of total turnover while computing the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The question of law referred to us by the Tribunal is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Both the reference cases being I.T.R. Nos. 131 of 1995 and 136 of 1995 are disposed of accordingly. The parties to bear their own costs. TARUN CHATTERJEE J.-I agree.
-
2001 (12) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion fee. (vi) Sale of other permits In the case reported in CIT v. Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation 2001 248 ITR 331 (Mad), this court has considered a similar question and the issue regarding registration fee was held in favour of the Revenue and all other issues were held in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, question (v) with respect to registration fee is answered in favour of the Revenue and all other questions in favour of the assessee.
-
2001 (12) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ndia) Pvt. Ltd. 1981 130 ITR 385 wherein it was held that the expenditure incurred for increasing the share capital of a company was revenue expenditure. Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT 1997 225 ITR 798, held that such expenditure is not revenue expenditure but capital expenditure. The assessee here clearly was not entitled to the benefit of section 35D as that section itself was inapplicable having regard to the increase in the share capital being subsequent to the establishment of the business and the assessee had not established any new industrial unit nor had it expanded the existing industrial undertaking. The question referred to us, viz., Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 35D in relation to the sum Of Rs. 7,30,002? is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2001 (12) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show-cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature. The High Court in our opinion ought not to have interfered with the show-cause notice. Having regard to the aforementioned pronouncements we are of the opinion that the petitioner may raise the contention raised in this writ petition before the concerned respondent. We are, therefore of the view that this writ petition could not and should not be entertained at the show cause stage. The petition is dismissed for the aforementioned reasons.
-
2001 (12) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... utable to the assessee, then the assessee has no defence. Since the finding of the Tribunal on facts is necessary for decision on the reference, we feel that in the interest of justice the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision after looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions of the parties referred to above. We accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the assessee and the Revenue. While considering the appeal, the Tribunal should take into account matters such as the assessee s role in the affairs of the firms where he is a partner, delay, if any, attributable to the assessee in the auditing of accounts of the firms, dates of finalising the accounts of the firms, whether there is further delay in filing the return by the assessee after the firm s accounts are audited, etc. In view of the remand, we decline to answer the reference.
-
2001 (12) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... butable to the assessee, then the assessee has no defence. Since the finding of the Tribunal on facts is necessary for decision on the reference, we feel that in the interest of justice the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision after looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions of the parties referred to above. We accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the assessee and the Revenue. While considering the appeal, the Tribunal should take into account matters such as the assessee s role in the affairs of the firms where he is a partner, delay, if any, attributable to the assessee in the auditing of accounts of the firms, dates of finalising the accounts of the firms, whether there is further delay in filing the return by the assessee after the firm s accounts are audited, etc. In view of the remand, we decline to answer the reference.
-
2001 (12) TMI 28 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... would be Rs.4,05,35,000. Having regard to the statutory provisions, the petitioner may be held to be entitled to 20 per cent. towards road and 15 per cent. for other purposes. Even then, the value of the land would be much more than Rs.68,00,000. For the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. So far as the submission of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, is concerned that the amount in question had not been paid by the respondent in view of the interim order of status quo dated April 18, 1995, passed by this court which was made absolute on November 22, 1995, this court also cannot grant any relief by way of interest and enhancement in the value of the land in the meantime in favour of the said respondents as the questions raised by them are not the subject-matter of the writ petition. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, therefore, may take recourse to such remedies as may be available to them in law. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f Criminal Procedure for the simple reason that the recovery of the amount due and payable by the respondent-firm to the Income-tax Department has nothing to do with the criminal prosecution because it is a distinct provision inviting penal action for the default committed by the firm. They are liable both for recovery of the amount with interest and penalty so also for prosecution for having committed offence punishable under section 276B of the Income-tax Act for their failure to pay the amount within the prescribed period and as the respondent-firm is a partnership concern all the partners of the firm as contemplated under section 278B would be liable to be prosecuted. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to take up the case for trial and dispose of it in accordance with law. The respondent-firm would be entitled to raise all pleas available to them under the law by way of defence. The revision application is thus disposed of.
-
2001 (12) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee. The entire amount of consideration was to be paid within a period of seven months. It is, therefore, not difficult to infer that by reason of the said agreement, the services of the consultant had also been hired for a period of five years. The agreement has to be read as a whole. So read, it is clear that there had been no absolute parting by the assessee with his technical know-how to the company. The assessee was also required to render various services to the company. Such services rendered shall also form part of the consideration. In this case, consideration had been received for imparting know-how not in association with the disposal of a capital asset and thus the receipt in our opinion should be treated as a revenue receipt. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the question sent to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal must be answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
....
|
