Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 144 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 26
Capital or Revenue Expenditure, Collaboration Agreement ... ... ... ... ..... ding to learned counsel for the Revenue, the issue is whether the expenditure, as claimed, was of capital nature or revenue in character. According to him, the judicial Officer s view was the correct one and should have been adopted. A similar question came up before the apex court in Eimco K. C. P. Ltd. v. CIT 2000 242 ITR 659. It was held that where a foreign company gives a technical know-how and obtains equity shares in the new company, the amount attributable to technical know-how was not revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act. However, it was treated to be of capital nature. It is clearly borne out from the various orders that the assessee was a new company. That being the position, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the expenditure in question was revenue in character. In other words, if it being of capital nature, depreciation as available in law has to be granted. The question is accordingly answered. These income-tax references are disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 25
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Law Applicable, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... Explanation 8.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where any amount is paid or is payable as interest in connection with the acquisition of an asset, so much of such amount as is relatable to any period after such asset is first put to use shall not be included, and shall be deemed never to have been included, in the actual cost of such asset. It is to be noted that the Explanation in question was inserted by the Finance Act, 1986, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1974. This provision no doubt was not before the Tribunal when it dealt with the question. Therefore, it would be proper if the Tribunal considers the effect of this insertion and decides the claim of the assessee. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. While deciding the matter afresh, the principles laid down by the apex court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT 1975 98 ITR 167 shall be kept in view by the Tribunal. The reference stands disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 24
Amnesty Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... scheme. The extension of the benefits of the scheme to the assessee who had purchased the property in the city of Madras of an extent of 3.00 acres 24.5 cents at No. 24, Arunachalam Road, Saligramam, Madras-93, under a sale deed of May 19, 1982, which showed the consideration of Rs.5,86,000 when in fact, the consideration actually paid was Rs.14,11,000 and incriminating documents establishing such larger payment had been seized at the raid prior to the filing of the declaration, cannot be sustained. Counsel for the assessee further pointed out that the appeal itself had not been considered on the merits especially on the ground of limitation. While holding that the Tribunal s order extending the amnesty scheme is unsustainable, we remit the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the other ground that had not been considered by it. The Tribunal shall render its decision within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records, as the matter is now very old one.
-
2001 (3) TMI 23
Public Interest Litigation, Deduction Of Tax At Source, Expatriate Employees ... ... ... ... ..... terference in a writ petition, we do not find any justification to interfere with orders holding that penalty was not leviable/dropping the proceedings. So far as non-action against individual employees is concerned, certain practical difficulties have been highlighted by the authorities. It is stated that tax and interest required to be paid by grossing up relevant amount has been calculated, and collection has been made. Except a negligible number, others have left the country on completion of projects, and it would be practically impossible to lay hands on those employees for further action relating to penalty, etc. While this practical aspect cannot be lost sight of, none the less it would be desirable and appropriate for the income-tax authorities to take action against those who are still available in India in accordance with law. What particular action would be appropriate is for the concerned income-tax authorities to decide. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 21
Charitable Purpose, Registration of Trust ... ... ... ... ..... re 3 and annexure 6, dated September 15, 1997, and September 23,1998, having been made in breach of the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. The petition is accordingly allowed. Annexure 3, dated September 15, 1997, and annexure 6, dated September 23, 1998, to the extent it rejects the application of the assessee for considering the cause shown by it for not making an application for registration under section 12A earlier to April 2, 1997, is set aside. However, it will not affect the registration of the trust as a charitable trust with effect from the date the application was made as it was otherwise found to be a charitable trust entitled to be registered under section 12A. The Commissioner shall decide the application of the assessee for considering the case of the petitioner in terms of section 12A(1) in accordance with law for the purpose of according registration with effect from the date of creation of such trust or any other date in accordance with law.
-
2001 (3) TMI 20
Business Expenditure, Excise And Customs Duty, Amounts Not Deductible ... ... ... ... ..... the decision of the Tribunal, the Department has come in appeal. Findings on question No. 2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation is a Central Government undertaking. It has incorporated a club, essentially to carry on staff welfare activities. Under clause 28, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited had a right to issue directives to the club which were binding on the club. At times, the members of the club, who were the employees of Bharat Petroleum Corporation, took part in tournaments held outside the club premises like Times shield in cricket. On such occasions, the assessee-Corporation used to reimburse expenses incurred by the club. This is the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, section 40A(9) is not applicable. No substantial question of law arises. Hence, our answer to the aforestated question No. 2 is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Accordingly, the income-tax appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 19
... ... ... ... ..... n error in holding that the expenditure incurred on growing crops with the aid of untreated water let out from the factory premises was expenditure, which should be regarded as business expenditure of the assessee. The first question referred to us as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs.71,152 was incurred by the assessee mainly as effluent disposal and hence it was in the nature of business expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business, is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, with the qualification that the,amount which had been allowed as deductible expenditure by the Commissioner (Appeals) shall remain undisturbed. The second question is returned unanswered as that question does not survive for consideration in view of the answer to the first question. The assessee is liable to pay cost in the sum of Rs.1,500 to the Revenue.
-
2001 (3) TMI 18
... ... ... ... ..... terials collected by the Income-tax Officer during the enquiry revealed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 conspired together to cheat the Income-tax Department by furnishing false medical certificate and claiming tax benefits illegally. The second accused knew fully well that the certificate issued by him was false and thus actively abetting the first accused in evading payment of tax by the first accused. It cannot now be contended that the allegations contained in the complaint are false and the statement of the co-accused alone is not sufficient. When this is the case of the complainant, it cannot be held that the complaint as against the second accused/the petitioner herein is not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all these points before the trial court at the appropriate stage. Under those circumstances, I do not find any merit in the above petitions. Therefore, the criminal original petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected C. M. Ps. are also dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 17
... ... ... ... ..... render the beneficial interest of the assessees in the corpus an interest incapable of being regarded as an asset of the beneficiaries. The fact that the corpus as it was at the time of the formation of the trust may not be the same at the time of its distribution, does not in any way alter the fact that in the year of assessment in the corpus then available to the trust, the assessees had a beneficial contingent interest to the extent provided in the trust. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us regarding the correctness of the Tribunal s view as to whether the contingent interest of the assessees was not an asset, in the negative and hold that the contingent interest was one which was capable of being valued, and that such valuation should be made in the manner set out in the illustration given in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam s Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust 1977 108 ITR 555. The Revenue shall be entitled to costs of a sum of Rs.1,500.
-
2001 (3) TMI 16
... ... ... ... ..... rate as provided under section 21A would apply only if the net wealth itself exceeds the taxable limit as provided under the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957? We have heard learned standing counsel, and perused the materials on record. On a consideration, we find that no substantial question of law is involved in these tax cases. That apart, the controversy had already been set at rest by this court in Haresh Anitha Trust v. CWT 1988 173 ITR 103, which has not been disputed by learned standing counsel for the Department. In view of the above, these tax cases are dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 15
... ... ... ... ..... e Act? (2) Whether, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell and Co. is not clearly applicable to the facts of the present case? In view of the finding given by the Tribunal that the change in the method of accounting was bona fide and consistently followed in the subsequent years, no substantial questions of law arise in this appeal. The appeal is, there fore, summarily dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 14
... ... ... ... ..... erial or tangible information for forming of requisite belief, then only the court can interfere, otherwise not. Information means the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence. It includes knowledge obtained from investigation study or instruction. To inform means to impart knowledge. A detail available in the papers filed before the Income-tax Officer does not by its mere presence or availability become an item of information. It is transmuted into an item of information only if and when its existence is realised and its implications are recognised. Whether a particular fact or material constitutes information in a particular case has to be decided with reference to the facts of that case and there cannot be a definite rule of universal application as to when a particular material will be taken to be an information. The above being the position, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated March 1, 2001, stands vacated.
-
2001 (3) TMI 13
... ... ... ... ..... e property 50 per cent. deduction should be allowed on unearned increase in the value of the land, the same was not accepted by the Tribunal. On being moved for reference, the question as set out above, has been referred for the opinion of this court. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the accountable person when the matter is called. We find that the Tribunal after analysing the relevant aspects came to hold that in the case at hand the proper method was the rental yield method. It accordingly deter mined the valuation. Since the valuation has been done on the rental yield basis, the question of land value and/or any increase thereto, more particularly unearned increase in the value is really of no consequence. That being the position, the Tribunal s conclusions are in order. We answer the question referred in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the accountable person. The reference application is disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 12
... ... ... ... ..... uity policy, he was to receive the annuities in terms of the policy, though the producer had paid the full value of the policy for purchasing the policy. So far as the assessee is concerned, the amount would reach him only as and when the annuity was paid to him by the insurance company, Even in earlier assessment years, the assessee had been assessed to tax only on the amounts actually received by him during the year. The tax case petition is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 11
... ... ... ... ..... 56, dealing with the preparation of the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account would govern their construction for the purposes of the two enactments. The broad distinction between the two is that whereas a provision is a charge against the profits to be taken into account against gross receipts in the profit and loss account, a reserve is an appropriation of profits, the asset or assets by which it is represented being retained to form part of the capital employed in the business. The Supreme Court, in the above case, has also referred to the various decisions of the Supreme Court and rendered the opinion that the amount set apart for the payment of any proposed dividend on the basis of the recommendation of the directors cannot constitute reserve for the purpose of computation of the capital of the company. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case, no reference lies to this court and hence, both the tax reference applications are rejected.
-
2001 (3) TMI 10
... ... ... ... ..... roperty had belonged to a Hindu undivided family consisting of the father and the son, and has accepted the partition between the two, it cannot allege that the share allotted to the son, by making appropriate entries in the books of account, amounted to a gift. It is elementary that in a Hindu undivided family, a coparcener has a right by birth, the son was as much entitled to the property of a Hindu undivided family as the father was. The division effected between the two would not result in a gift from one to the another. The question referred to its is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee shall be entitled to Costs of a sum of Rs.1,500.
-
2001 (3) TMI 9
... ... ... ... ..... the law explained in paras. 8 and 8.1. We find no substance in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as no substantial question of law arises.
-
2001 (3) TMI 8
... ... ... ... ..... d by his predecessor in the office, the Deputy Director is authorised to include the name of the petitioner . That also goes to show that the authorisation was made not by application of independent mind by the officer issuing authority to the relevant facts with an object to consider whether a sanction has to be issued for prosecuting the petitioner also for prosecution under section 276B or not. It has been made mechanically by inserting the name of an additional accused without considering whether such addition is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Such a sanction cannot be considered to be a valid sanction which could provide valid foundation for prosecuting the persons named therein. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order annexure 3-A read with annexure 3 so far as sanctioning prosecution of the petitioner is concerned, is quashed and consequently further proceedings in pursuance thereof are also quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 7
"1. Whether, Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Assessing Officer was not having any valid reasons, for initiating the proceedings under section 148? 2. Whether, Tribunal was correct in law in holding that no 'colourable device' was adopted by the assessee with regard to the sale of units of the HUF of which the assessee was a coparcener? 3. Whether, Tribunal was correct in law in setting aside the order of the Revenue authorities and directing the Assessing Officer to delete all the additions in the hands of the individual assessee?" - Tribunal's conclusions cannot be termed as perverse. Even if the Revenue's stand that a different view was available to be drawn, is accepted that would not be a ground for holding that a question of law arises which needs adjudication.
-
2001 (3) TMI 6
Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gain arising on the sale of agricultural land situated in the municipal limits of Pathankot is not taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 - question must now be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in the light of the judgment of this court in Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India
....
|