|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 445 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before the Income-tax Officer. No other points have been argued before us in the course of hearing of the appeal. There is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The appeal being A.P.O. No. 701 of 1992 is dismissed. The judgment and order under appeal are affirmed. There will be no order as to costs. No separate argument has been advanced by the learned advocate for the parties in connection of A.P.O. No. 699 of 1992 and A.P.O No. 700 of 1992, which involve the identical facts and question of law. That being so, the judgment passed in A.P.O. No. 701 of 1992 will also govern both A.P.O. No. 699 of 1992 and A.P.O. No. 700 of 1992 as a result of which these two appeals are also dismissed. In view of disposal of the above noted appeals the reference case being I.T.R. No. 101 of 1995 is disposed of in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As prayed for, stay of operation of the order is granted for two months. TARUN CHATTERJEE J. -I agree.
-
2001 (12) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t case, the petitioner-assessee has his own explanation, that by mistake he went to the Income-tax Office on Saturday and immediately on Monday he has made the payment in the bank. It is true that the petitioner was assessed to income-tax for a number of years earlier. Yet it is possible that with such a special scheme an assessee could be in doubt as to where the payment is to be made. In our view, the explanation given by the petitioner, cannot be rejected, particularly when immediately on the next working day he has made the payment in a nationalised bank. The provision of section 90 will have to be read flexibly in the interest of the assessees to permit genuine explanations. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondent on January 28, 2000, is quashed and set aside, and the respondent is directed to issue the clearance certificate to the petitioner under the said scheme. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms, though without any order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 23 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ents after about two years for Rs.5,05,000. Its value could not have shot up from Rs.4,11,000 to Rs.9,25,400 in this short span of time. There is no evidence on the file which may even remotely suggest that there was more than 100 per cent. increase in the value of property from August, 1981 to December, 1983. Still further, the proceedings under section 269C were initiated against the respondent s vendor as well. However, these were dropped after it was found that the value of the property was actually Rs.4,08,695. If the property was correctly valued at Rs.4,08,695 in August, 1981, then in the absence of concrete evidence it cannot be said that the Revenue was right in claiming that the actual value in December, 1983, was Rs.9,25,400. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. It calls for no interference by this court under section 269H of the Act. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Revision - By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, passed under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - By the said order, the Commissioner of Income-tax has dismissed the revision application filed by the assessee both on the ground of maintainability as well as on the merits. - we are of the opinion that the revision application filed by the assessee under section 264 of the Income-tax Act was not maintainable. Once it is held that the appeal is not maintainable, there is no need to go into the merits of the case. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner chooses to pursue the remedy of appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), then the findings given by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the order under section 264 on the merits will not come in the way of the petitioner.
-
2001 (12) TMI 21 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Reason To Believe - we find that the Assessing Officer has in fact recorded reasons on August 31, 1999, for issuing notice under section 148(1). We may say that the reasons mentioned by him do not suffer from any infirmity. The belief entertained by the Assessing Officer is clearly based on reasons which have bearing on the matter. – Further, Sub-section (2) of section 148 clearly provides that the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice thereunder record his reasons for doing so. We have already held above that the Assessing Officer has recorded necessary reasons in support of the belief. The question is whether an assessee can demand a copy of the Assessing Officer's reasons along with the notice. The proceedings in the back assessment begin only with the issue of notice under section 148. It is only after the service of notice, the assessee becomes a party to the proceedings. Consequently, the assessee is not entitled to get copy of the same at the stage of issuance of notice. In the result, the writ application deserves dismissal. We order accordingly.
-
2001 (12) TMI 20 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Firm, Retirement Of Partner - "1. Whether on a proper construction of the deed of dissolution it could be held that it was a case of retirement of the partner and not of the dissolution of the firm? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the excess of Rs.3,62,631 received by the partner on the dissolution of the firm could be subject to assessment as income under the head 'Capital gain'?" - there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that whether it is held to be a case of dissolution of the partnership or as a retirement, having regard to the provisions contained in section 47(ii) of the Act as it stood prior to 1988, the assessee was entitled only to the assets, he derived from the partnership firm and not the excess amount. Thus, the aforementioned questions are answered in favour of the Revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Transfer To Defraud Revenue, Property Transfered To Trust By Assessee - It is claimed in the writ petition that the said Narayan Kishore Choudhury executed a deed of trust on May 18, 1972, concerning his shares in the premises, No. 2/2B, Harington Street, Calcutta, and appointed the present writ petitioners as the trustees thereof. It is contended that the Revenue acted erroneously in treating the said deed of trust as a revocable trust. It is, further, alleged that the Revenue was not entitled to initiate proceedings against the trustees to recover the dues from Narayan Prasad Choudhury. - The appeal is, dismissed
-
2001 (12) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Notice - taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the facts which have come on record, it is apparent that the respondent himself is not sure as to the year of taxability and whether the said item requires to be taxed in the assessment year 1991-92 or the assessment year 1992-93. In such a situation, it is not possible to agree with the stand of the Revenue that any income could be stated to have escaped the assessment for the assessment year 1991-92 as a consequence of any failure or omission on the part of the assessee. The petition is therefore allowed. The impugned notice dated October 3, 1997 (annexure R) is quashed and set aside
-
2001 (12) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Export, Special Deduction, Writ, Alternate Remedy - This is an application, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel, recall and rescind the impugned order of assessment passed by respondent No. 1 for the assessment year 1993-94 in refusing to allow the full deduction to the petitioners under section 80HHC and further writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to grant approval under section 80HHC(2)(a) of the said Act beyond six months to forbear from giving effect to the amendment in respect of section 80HHC(2)(a) with effect from June 1, 1999, by the Finance Act, 1999, and also to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for extension of time for repatriation of balance export value beyond six months. - in my opinion, it would not be proper for me to pass any order on this application and on these facts this application must fail and is hereby dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 16 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Salary, Perquisites, Rent-free Accommodation - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of perquisite on account of residential house known as 'Modi Bhawan' was not assessable under section 28 read with section 2(24)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but under section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the method of assessing its value was correct in law and whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing it from the value assessed by the Appellate Commissioner?" These references are accordingly answered in favour of the assessee holding that the value of perquisite on account of residential house was not asses sable under section 28 read with section 2(24)(iv) of the Income-tax Act but under section 17(2) of the said Act and the Tribunal adopted the correct method of assessing its value.
-
2001 (12) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Total Income, Hindu Undivided Family - The question referred to us, viz., "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income received by the assessee's wife for maintenance is includible in the assessee's total income under section 64(2)(c) read with section 64(1)(iv) of the Act?" is, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Appropriate Authority - In this writ petition the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or writ of certiorari for quashing the letter whereby the petitioner herein was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.22,50,000 plus interest at 18 pet cent. from the date of receipt of the money till its deposit in the Government of India account. - After the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioners made representations for returning the possession of the property in question and asking them to accept the amount of sale consideration paid by the respondents without any interest. However, vide communication dated July 24, 2001, the respondents demanded interest on the amount of sale consideration paid by them to the petitioner under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner challenged the demand of interest and it is for this reason the present petition is filed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Commissioner has rightly stated that a broad view should be taken while deciding the question as to whether the gift is a deemed gift. It is only in cases where the difference in price is abnormal, the conclusion that the vendor has consciously given away to the buyer a valuable thing at a much lesser value only to favour the buyer can be reached, and the question of deemed gift would arise.
-
2001 (12) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation - Actual Cost - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) applied to the facts of the case and that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation on the book value of assets of the earlier firm but only on the value as fixed by the Income-tax Officer under Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961?" - Here the firm was dissolved within about 13 months of its formation. The two partners besides the assessee-company were also the only two shareholders and directors of the company. The reality before and after the dissolution was the same. The same person who enjoyed the benefits of the ownership of the assets and its uses continue to have such benefits, the two partners indirectly and the assessee itself directly. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in this background cannot be faulted. The question referred to us is therefore answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2001 (12) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
There is no merit in this appeal. The Tribunal has rightly held that the amounts paid towards provident fund and E.S.I. dues were amounts which were required to be deducted while computing the taxable income of the assessee. The amounts had been paid within the grace period provided under the relevant statutes. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the liability of the assessee under the Employees Provident Fund Act had accrued to the assessee-company during the previous year and the assessee would be entitled to a deduction of Rs. 15,53,124?" - In view of the Supreme Court's decision in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT the deduction has to be allowed and hence the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (12) TMI 9 - DELHI HIGH COURT
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing that the value of perquisite for residential accommodation be limited to Rs. 12,691? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing that the value of the perquisite in the shape of rent-free accommodation be limited to the value fixed by the prescribed authority under section 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for the assessment year 1971-72?" - held that when the property belonging to the company is allowed to be used by a director, then even though it may not be a case of letting out, the value of the rent-free accommodation has to be determined
-
2001 (12) TMI 8 - DELHI HIGH COURT
The question which has been raised in this appeal under section 260A is the interpretation of "royalty" as envisaged under Explanation 2 appended to section 9(1) of the Act. By reason of this Explanation which provides that the income specified therein shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India specifies six items which would come within the scope thereof. - None of the sub-clauses in Explanation 2 under section 9(1)(vi) would, in the circumstances of this case, be capable of being regarded as covering the design and engineering carried out by the supplier of the machinery abroad. There is no transfer or licence of any patent, invention, model or design. The design referred to in the contract is only the design of the equipment required to be manufactured by the supplier abroad and supplied to the purchaser. The information concerning the working of the machine is only incidental to the supply as the machinery was tailor-made for the buyers. Unless the buyer knows the way in which the machinery has been put together, the machinery cannot be maintained in the best possible way and repaired when occasion arises. No licence of any patent is involved. Sub-clause (vi) and also (vii) of section 9(1) would have no application as the design was only preliminary to the manufacture and integrally connected therewith - we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
-
2001 (12) TMI 7 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Substantial question of law which may arise for consideration of this court would be as to whether the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in so far as it fails to take into consideration the relevant facts and based its decision on irrelevant factors not germane to the purpose of passing the said order. - we are, therefore, of the opinion that no question of law far less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. We are further of the view that the learned Tribunal while passing the said order dated September 25, 2001, under section 254(2) having given sufficient cogent reasons, no interference thereof is called for.
-
2001 (12) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable?" - Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. - we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable.
....
|
