Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 520 Records
-
2004 (5) TMI 60 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Applicant, a limited liability company incorporated in UAE, is engaged in offering, among others, remittance services for transferring amounts from UAE to various places in India - it was granted licence by RBI for the purpose of setting up liaison offices in India - that so much of the profits as shall be deemed to accrue or arise to the applicant in India which are attributable to the "PE", namely, the liaison offices in India, would be taxable in India even under the DTAA.
-
2004 (5) TMI 59 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Applicant, a non-resident, gifted shares of Indian companies to his wife out of natural love - Out of these shares, some were sold by her - This resulted in earning income in the form of capital gains on the investment originally made by the applicant - Income under the head Capital Gains made by the wife of the applicant will be clubbed with the income of the applicant - Such income under the head Capital Gains, shall be excluded from the total income of applicant's wife.
-
2004 (5) TMI 58 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Applicant availing services of foreign Company - applicant believes that no tax is required to be deducted at source while making payments of the service fee to Danfoss Singapore u/s 195 - payments made by the applicant to Danfoss Singapore cannot be said to be reimbursement of the actual expenditure incurred by Danfoss Singapore and it cannot be said that no income is embedded into such payment, therefore, the payments have to be made after withholding tax us/ 195
-
2004 (5) TMI 57 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Applicant who had business of providing software solutions for the telecom industry entered into a agreements with non-resident entities for securing business from outside India - a letter of the CIT, on record, proves that no income arises to the said foreign agents in India – therefore, there may not be any need to deduct tax at source u/s 195 in respect of payments made to them by way of Commission on export earnings and Retainer fees
-
2004 (5) TMI 56 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Applicant, a closely-held private limited company incorporated in India, engaged in the business of development of properties and allied activities, allotted partly convertible debentures to a company incorporated in Mauritius - Since exemption from tax has not been granted to the applicant either under Income-tax Act, 1961, or under the DTAA, the applicant is required to deduct tax at source in accordance with section 193 on interest paid or credited to the account of the foreign company
-
2004 (5) TMI 55 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Applicant, a non-resident company in France, has a wholly owned Indian subsidiary - Indian company has been allowed to set up a hardware technology park and the existing factory has been bonded by the Customs - whether the Indian subsidiary would be entitled to tax exemption under section 10A – held that application is not maintainable because the non-resident company has sought an advance ruling on the tax liability of the Indian company, which is not permissible under section 245N
-
2004 (5) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Furthermore, we have held that the Assessing Officer had sought to reopen the assessment not on the ground of non-disclosure of the facts truly and fully but on the ground of change of opinion based upon the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. K. K. Doshi and Co. 2000 245 ITR 849. As we have held earlier that change of opinion based upon a subsequent decision of a court is no ground of reopening of an assessment under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of a period of four years. Thus, in the present case, there is inherent lack of jurisdiction in the respondents to reopen the assessment. The notice relates to the assessment year 1991-92 ending March 31, 1991. The notice has been issued on May 31, 2001, and was received by the petitioner on June 1, 2001. The notice was issued after the expiry of 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. For the reasons, we allow the writ petition and make the rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c).
-
2004 (5) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Penalty imposed under section 271C - failure to deduct the tax at source on payment made to employees outside India. – Tribunal was of opinion that there was a reasonable cause for not deducting the tax at source on account of emoluments paid to the expatriate employees outside India and hence no penalty under section 271C is exigible by the alleged default - the action of the authorities in not levying the penalty/dropping proceedings cannot be said to be unreasonable. Considering the limited jurisdiction as well as limited scope for interference in a writ petition, we do not find any justification to interfere with orders holding that penalty was not leviable – Revenue’s appeal is dismissed
-
2004 (5) TMI 52 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
CIT observed that while working out the deduction u/s 80HHC there was a negative figure of profit at one stage which had been ignored by the AO and thereby excess deduction had been allowed - Accordingly, he held that the order passed by AO was erroneous - Tribunal by allowing the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner u/s 263 has recorded a finding that the computation made by the AO was in accordance with the view expressed by various Benches of the ITAT, which have been discussed in detail in the order itself. Thus, it has been observed that since the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible view, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to exercise power u/s 263 and treat the order to be erroneous in any manner - no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal
-
2004 (5) TMI 51 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Application of income for charitable or religious purposes in/out India- genuineness of its activities - trust submitted two applications for registration u/s 12A and recognition u/s 80G - application was rejected on the ground that the applicant itself has admitted that the scholarships can be paid to the members even outside India – section 12AA does not refer to the activities in India or outside India. It refers to application of income for charitable or religious purposes in India as also with direction or order of the Board for application of income as aforesaid outside India - So far as income which is applied outside India is concerned, it is not a relevant criteria for rejecting the application. - order made by the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), rejecting the application is quashed and set aside with a direction to consider the application strictly in accordance with law.
-
2004 (5) TMI 50 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AO held that since the assessee had diverted its borrowed funds to a sister concern without charging any interest, proportionate interest relating to the said amount out of the total interest paid to the bank deserved to be disallowed - Tribunal has recorded categorical findings of fact that the amounts advanced by the assessee to its sister concern, had been advanced by utilising the overdrafts account and that on the dates on which the amounts were so advanced, there was no credit balance in the bank account of the assessee. - Assessee has not been able to explain the purpose for which the amount had been advanced - no material on record to show that the assessee had derived any business benefit by advancing the interest-free amounts to its sister concern. - Disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was justified.
-
2004 (5) TMI 49 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
"Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the scope of assessments made by the ITO in pursuance of the directions issued u/s 250 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) was limited and the ITO was not competent to include in the taxable income the amount of Rs. 4,29,593 when at the time of the original assessment, the same was not included? - When there was no direction by the AAC to the AO to touch the issue whether on amalgamation, the assets taken over by the assessee-company be treated as transfer for the purpose of S. 45, we agree with the Tribunal that the AO has committed the mistake touching that issue, which was not before the AAC nor any direction has been given by the AAC to this effect. - We answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee
-
2004 (5) TMI 48 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question of law/fact – Tribunal rejecting the prayer for making a reference to HC - imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - We concur with the observation of the Tribunal and find that the issue really does not involve any question of law - The imposition of penalty requires some material to be used against the assessee which may be held to be a case of concealment. No such factual material could be filed or produced or taken note of by the Assessing Officer and hence, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal quashed the imposition of penalty. This court cannot go into the question of fact recorded by the two appellate authorities and hence such finding being a finding of fact, the same is binding on this court. We, thus, find that no question of law as such arises in the case.
-
2004 (5) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Legality and and validity of the impugned notices u/s 148 - competent authority has recorded the reasons for initiating the proceedings after taking into consideration the sworn statement given by the petitioner before the competent authority - petitioner himself has appeared before the competent authority and stated on oath that he has sold 56 plots from 1984 to 1996 after forming layout. But, he has come up before this court taking a specific ground that the proceedings initiated and the notices issued by the respondent without assigning any reasons were without jurisdiction. The said submission and the specific ground taken by the petitioner in these petitions are contrary to the materials on record. Therefore, on the ground of suppression of material facts also, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed
-
2004 (5) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessee owns a plant nursery where he grows ornamental and decorative plants which he sells and derives income therefrom - assessing authority held that the assessee's income was not agricultural income – In further appeal, the Tribunal has held that the Assessing Officer should bring on record the nature of the operations, viz., primary as well as secondary on the specific land area - Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer has to examine how the assessee can be said to be carrying on agriculture - Mere performing of the secondary operation will not make the assessee's activity an agricultural activity - We find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal – Assessee’s appeals are dismissed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Tribunal is not right in holding that if the property is self-acquired property in the hands of a Hindu male it will remain self-acquired property even after his death. This is not correct - On the death it becomes ancestral property in the hands of his sons. "All property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father's father or father's father's father, is ancestral property", (vide Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law). - these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that in the absence of a will the self-acquired property of a father dying intestate and the income thereon was in the status of a Hindu undivided family, is restored
-
2004 (5) TMI 44 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Held that when a donor trust which is itself a charitable and religious trust donates its income to another trust, the provisions of section 11(1)(a) can be said to have been met by such donor trust and the donor trust can be said to have applied its income for religious and charitable purposes, notwithstanding the fact that the donation is subjected to any conditions - Whether the assessee-trust could be held to have lent the sum of Rs. 77,000 to the DCM Ltd. without adequate security within the meaning of section 13(2)(a) and hence the interest income of Rs. 5,200 wherefrom was rightly brought to tax by the Income-tax Officer?" - It may be relevant to note that so far as the adequacy of interest is concerned, the Revenue is not disputing the same – This question is purely on the facts and it cannot be said to be a question of law and, therefore, the question is not required to be answered
-
2004 (5) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Search and seizure – validity – reason to believe - authorities cannot rely on material found during the search for taking the plea that this was the basis of the reason to believe - There existed no material which could lead to the formation of reasons to believe under section 132(1) that the petitioner had cash or assets which represented undisclosed income. - No material has been disclosed in the counter affidavit to show that there were reasons to believe in the authority concerned for issuing the warrant of authorization - impugned warrant of authorisation is quashed and the entire search and seizure is declared illegal
-
2004 (5) TMI 42 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Short-term capital loss – set off - "(1) Whether, on a correct interpretation of section 70(2)(i), the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that short-term capital loss in respect of one asset could be set off against short-term capital gain in respect of another asset in the same assessment year? (2) Whether on a correct interpretation of section 71(3), the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that short-term capital loss can be sought to be set off against income assessable under any head of income other than capital gains (i.e., against income from other sources also) even if there is income from capital gains?" - We answer both the questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
2004 (5) TMI 41 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Valuation of property - Whether, Tribunal substantially erred in law in interpreting the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act with regard to definition of 'urban land' in section 2(ea), clause (v), and Explanation (b) to section 2(ea) which stipulates that the area of land occupied by a building does not form part of urban land? - Whether, Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that by virtue of the provision of section 7(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as the property under consideration was exclusively used by the assessee throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the valuation date, its value was to be determined at the option of the assessee in the manner laid down in Schedule III to the Act as on April 1, 1971?"
....
|