|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 452 of 452 Records
-
2002 (3) TMI 12 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources, Search And Seizure - Tribunal has recorded a finding in paras. 3 and 4 that the assessee had recorded this transaction in its books of account as was clear from the audited balance-sheet filed along with the compilation. It has also been recorded that all through the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the said transaction with regard to supply of gas cylinders was a genuine transaction and the belief of the assessee seems to be reasonable on the basis of various documents. - Considering the matter from all angles, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no concealment of income and the amount could not have been added as undisclosed income of the assessee. Against such a finding recorded by the Tribunal, we find that no substantial question of law arises.
-
2002 (3) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Appeal To Appellate Tribunal, Powers Of Tribunal, Power To Rectify Mistakes - In the instant case, the Tribunal granted rectification and posted the case for rehearing, having admitted that its order has proceeded on the assumption of wrong facts. In our view, in the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in correcting the manifest error. The learned single judge has committed an error in interfering with a well justified order, without looking into the real controversy involved. Consequently, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and dismiss the writ petition.
-
2002 (3) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area, Special Deduction, Export - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that in respect of income derived from (a) interest receipts, (b) Modvat credits, and (c) International Price Rationalisation the assessee was entitled to deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the total turnover in section 80HHC of the Act is only the turnover relating to the export business of the assessee and not the turnover relating to other business of the assessee?" - assessee while supporting the order of the Tribunal also invited our attention to Form No. 10CCAC and submitted that even the method of calculation in that form would suggest that the total turnover to be taken into account would be restricted only to the total turnover in respect of the goods to which the section applies. It will not be necessary for us to consider that argument because the interpretation of that term is clear from the language of clause (a) of sub-section (1), clause (a) of sub-section (2) and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3). - In the circumstances, we answer the reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (3) TMI 9 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Export, Special Deduction, Computation Of Profits - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the profit derived from export is to be computed for the purpose of the relief under section 80HHC in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (3) on Assam tea without taking into account the turnover of tea from other estates, provided the business there is exclusively of export of tea? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, should not the Tribunal have taken the total turnover of the entire business including the Assam Tea Estate since as regards the tea business is concerned, the business as a whole in respect of all tea estates has to be taken together and is not the direction to the assessing authority accordingly wrong and unwarranted?"
-
2002 (3) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty -- Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the Revenue mainly on the ground that cheques were crossed and were deposited in the account of the assessee-firm through banking channel. Consequently and in the result, the provisions of section 269SS of the Act could not be attracted. A further finding has been recorded that the bank has also issued a certificate in this regard that all the amounts of six creditors have been shown in the account of Makhija Construction Company, i.e., the assessee. The bank has further mentioned that all the six transactions in question were as per the banking norms and there was no flaw in the transactions, whereby the afore said amount of Rs.2,15,000 was transferred in the account of the assessee. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that for such minor deviation, no penalty could have been imposed on the assessee as otherwise the transaction appears to be genuine, proper and bona fide. - we find that there is no merit and substance in this appeal. - It does not involve any substantial question of law and the appeal hereby fails and is dismissed.
-
2002 (3) TMI 7 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
"Whether on a proper interpretation of the provisions of section 37(2A) read with Explanation 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing Rs. 19,918 being cost of gift articles by treating the same as entertainment expenses?" - The words "hospitality - of every kind" by the assessee to any person includes every type of expenditure on entertainment. If the assessee distributes the suit lengths that cannot be taken out from the nature of entertainment expenses. Though it may be for the business, once the provision is there such type of expenses cannot be allowed. As stated earlier sub-section (2A) starts with a non obstante clause and Explanation 2 to section 37(2A) includes every type of expenses, therefore, in our view, there is nothing wrong in the order of the Tribunal and this type of expenditure is hit by the Explanation 2 to sub-section (2A) of section 37 of the Act. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (3) TMI 6 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
"1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the penalty under section 271D for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act? - 2. Whether, for levying the penalty under section 271D for violation of section 269SS of the Act is it required by the Assessing Officer to look into genuineness of loan or deposit?" - The questions referred are interconnected. We are required to adjudicate upon whether non-compliance of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act of 1961 necessarily imposes liability on the assessee for payment of penalty by virtue of section 271D of the Act of 1961 or the assessing authority has the jurisdiction and authority to consider the facts and circumstances in which the assessee made default of non-complying the provisions of section 269SS of the Act of 1961 and can waive the penalty. - the questions are answered in favour of the assessee. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (3) TMI 5 - DELHI HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the grants received from the Government by the assessee-company, which is a 100 per cent. Government company, to enable the company to function, was a capital receipt or revenue receipt?" - no case has been made out for recalling this court's order - The reviewIn a case where a question comes up for consideration as to whether grants in aid would come within the mischief of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act or not, we are of the opinion that the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil would not be attracted. If that be so, any public sector undertaking would not be liable to pay income-tax at all. Application is dismissed.
-
2002 (3) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"1. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80L? - 2. Whether, Tribunal is right in law in holding that denial of exemption under section 11 should be restricted to the income arising from investments which are in contravention of the provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act and that the Income-tax Officer should re-examine the assessee's claim in the light of its decision in the case of Thuluva Vellala Association?" - As the assessee is entitled to exemption of its income under section 11 of the Act, there is no need to invoke section 80L of the Act. It is therefore unnecessary to answer the first question, as it does not survive for consideration.
-
2002 (3) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
TDS – section 195 - there is no doubt that if the amount is paid as interest to a non-resident in the usual course of business then at the time of credit of such amount to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash, or by issue of a cheque or draft the payer would be bound to deduct income-tax at the rate in force. However, when such amount becomes part of a judgment-debt, it loses its original character and assumes the character of a judgment debt. Once such an amount assumes the character of a judgment-debt, the decree passed by the civil court must be executed subject only to the deductions and adjustments permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure – Thus, judgement-debtor is not entitled to withdraw the amount towards tax to be deducted at source from decreetal amount
-
2002 (3) TMI 2 - SC ORDER
Activity of making powder from the chicory roots - there are only two processes in making the powder from chicory roots, (i) roots are roasted, and (ii) after that they are powdered - assessee-firm as an industrial undertaking is not eligible for deduction under sections 80HH, 80-I, 80J
-
2002 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Resort to section 41(1) could arise only if the liability of the assessee can be said to have ceased finally without the possibility of reviving it. On the facts found by the Tribunal, the Tribunal as well as the High Court were well justified incoming to the conclusion that the purchase tax liability of the assessee had not ceased finally during the year in question - revenue is not allowed to take back what has been allowed earlier as business expenditure
....
|
