|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 520 Records
-
2004 (5) TMI 40 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Proceedings under section 148 - we have not been able to notice any apparent illegality in the finding of the Tribunal when the Tribunal proceeded to uphold the initiation of proceedings on the merits - So far as the issue in relation to the service of notice under section 148 is concerned, we concur with the finding of the Tribunal which has dealt with this issue in its proper perspective. It was rightly held that it was served on the appellant and that no prejudice was caused to the appellant in any manner and that they got full opportunity to defend themselves and challenge the proceedings - In our opinion, not raising an objection, nor indicating the prejudice caused, we cannot possibly hold that any question of law much less pure and substantial question of law arises in the entire proceedings initiated against the assessee under section 148 – appeal dismissed
-
2004 (5) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Questions proposed at the instance of the Revenue relate to certain additions/deletions made by the Assessing Officer and later deleted by the CIT (Appeals) and finally upheld in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in second appeal filed by the parties (Revenue). Yet another question is in regard to giving benefit to the assessee under section 43B and in relation to addition/deletion made under section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules - We are of the view that no referable question of law arises on the questions proposed by the Revenue on any of the claims made by the assessee as they are all based on questions of facts and must rest at the level of the Tribunal
-
2004 (5) TMI 38 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Validity of notice under section 148 – A bare perusal of the reasons recorded shows that the assumption of jurisdiction was clearly bad as the pre-requisite conditions as provided in section 147 have not been fulfilled - The entire thrust of the observations recorded by the Assessing Officer is to justify his satisfaction about escapement of income. There is not even a whisper of an allegation that such escapement had occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment - Since the illegality of notice under section 148 of the Act is apparent from the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act, it is a fit case for interference in the exercise of our writ jurisdiction. - Impugned notice is without jurisdiction and is, accordingly quashed.
-
2004 (5) TMI 37 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Prayer for waiver of interest on the penalty imposed - It appears to us that it could not be said that during the period November 17, 1988, to October 25, 1995, there was any outstanding demand for penalty against the assessee and, therefore, it could not be said that there was a default in payment of penalty making it liable for the interest during that period. - We, therefore, allow this writ petition in part and quash the demand for interest on the penalty for the period November 17,1988, to October 25,1995. We hold that the assessee would be liable for interest on the penalty imposed for the period prior to November 17, 1988, and for the period subsequent to October 25,1995, until the recovery of penalty
-
2004 (5) TMI 36 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Legality of rule 2B(1)(a) – challenge to the provisions of rule 2B(1)(a) of the Income-tax Rules making the difference between the air travel charges and the railway first class AC charges exigible to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 - According to the petitioner, this rule is ultra vires the provisions of section 10(5) - By virtue of the provisions of section 10(5) of the Act, rule 2B of the Income-tax Rules is issued prescribing the conditions for the purpose of section 10(5) - Section 10(5) which is referred to above clearly provides for prescribing the conditions regarding the amount which shall be exempt from tax having regard to the travel concession or assistance granted to the employees of the Central Government. It is by virtue of this provision rule 2B has been issued. The petitioner is not able to point out any illegality in regard to the condition imposed in rule 2B(1)(a) as it stood prior to October 1, 1997. – petition is dismissed as having no merit
-
2004 (5) TMI 35 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Deduction under section 80HH - "Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under section 80HH would be available out of income as computed under the Income-tax Act, and not out of the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking without deducting therefrom depreciation and investment allowance?" - "Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that for the purposes of allowing deduction under section 80HH the profits and gains of an industrial undertaking should be computed by taking into consideration unabsorbed depreciation, current depreciation and investment allowance?" – Both questions are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2004 (5) TMI 34 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Legality and validity of the search and seizure operations – The details of the information available in the relevant files received from various sources other than the report of the CAG were voluminous, and the same were capable of leading the authorities to conclude that the writ petitioners were in possession of undisclosed property/income which they would never divulge even after service of a notice under section 131 - Held that there was no illegality in issuing the warrants of authorisation of search and seizure under section 132 - The documents/materials recovered and seized during the course of search are evidence of non-disclosure of property/income. Therefore, the petitioners' contention that the respondent authorities acted illegally in issuing the warrants of authorisation of search and seizure has no leg to stand. - the materials seized during the course of search have their own evidentiary value for the purpose of consequential action under the Income-tax Act and no writ of prohibition in restraint of such use could be granted
-
2004 (5) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
"Whether, Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) holding that the value of the land should not be added while valuing the property on the rent capitalisation method?" - "In the method adopted by the Valuation Officer, the value of the land is taken twice, once being included in the amount arrived at by the yield or rental method and again under the 'reversionary' method. This is an entirely novel approach but in our view erroneous. - When the method of rent capitalisation is applied for making valuation of the properties in the hands of the assessee then in that event the valuation of the land on which the property is standing cannot be added in the total valuation. - As a result of the foregoing discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
2004 (5) TMI 32 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income from Lottery – Additions u/s 69 made in the hands of assessee in the wealth-tax assessment - authenticity of the purchase of lottery ticket - The case of the Department is that they have purchased the ticket after draw of lottery and converted black money into white. - As in the income-tax appeals, we have taken the view that Rs. 88.80 lakhs is a result of lottery draw in the name of three brothers and now the three brothers have offered one third of that amount in their income-tax returns and that should be taxed as offered by all three brothers, therefore, the Assessing Officer has wrongly included Rs. 88.80 lakhs in the wealth of the assessee, Suresh Kumar, in the assessment year 1988-89. - There is no justification to make such addition in the wealth-tax assessment of Suresh Kumar. He has already shown one-third of Rs. 88.80 lakhs as his wealth in the wealth-tax returns in the year 1989-90, that be accepted. – Revenue’s appeal dismissed
-
2004 (5) TMI 31 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Cash transactions - addition to the income of the assessee on account of violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) - transactions of cash payments in the present case are protected by the exceptions provided under rule 6DD(j) read with circular dated May 31,1977. Even otherwise there is no dispute about the genuineness of the transactions - It was held by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessee's case fell under the exceptions provided in rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules as the cash payments had been made on the insistence of the seller and this claim of the assessee was supported by the confirmatory letter issued by the seller. These findings have been confirmed by the Tribunal - No substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.
-
2004 (5) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Compulsory purchase order passed by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C - order passed under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - order passed declining to rectify the wrongful deduction of Rs. 5,06,200 from the total consideration - it is submitted that the orders passed under Chapter XX-C of the Act which are impugned in the petition are liable to be quashed and set aside - We decline to interfere with the orders passed under sections 269UD(1) and 269UJ(1) of the Income-tax Act. However, we direct the respondents to refund the wrongfully deducted amount of Rs. 3,72,500 with interest
-
2004 (5) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Whether, Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the reserve for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added to the balance of profit disclosed in the annual accounts of the assessee-insurance company? Whether, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the disallowance of amount representing expenditure which was partly for payment of entertainment allowance to the employees and partly for offering customary hospitality to the constituents? – Both questions are answered in favour of assessee – AO added back the amount for “Provision for taxation” to the balance of profits disclosed by the annual accounts of the assessee-insurance Company – Since there is nothing to show that any sum was paid on account of any rate or tax levied on the profits, etc., it was not open for the Assessing Officer to add back the figures for “provision for taxation”
-
2004 (5) TMI 28 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Contravention of section 269T – penalty for violation of section 27IE - of taking or accepting certain loans and deposits - A bare reading of section 269T prior to the amendment and section 269SS makes it abundantly clear that the Legislature made a distinction between the mode of repayment of certain deposits which conditions provided in section 269T were not made applicable to a case of loan; loans and deposits have been treated differently in section 269SS and the unamended section 269T - Loan had not been included in deposit under unamended section 269T, thus, the scheme of sections 269SS and 269T as the provision stood before amendment in the relevant assessment year provided for repayment of certain "deposit" by way of account payee cheque not that of loan – Thus, this revenue’s appeal is meritless so it is dismissed
-
2004 (5) TMI 27 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Relief under the “Voluntary disclosure of income scheme” - petitioner had filed the declaration/return under the VDI Scheme on December 31, 1997 which is well within the time provided under the Scheme and the petitioner had also remitted the tax due as per the declaration on March 30, 1998, together with interest which is also well within the time provided under the Scheme. The only question is with regard to the deficit of Rs. 360, representing deficit of interest, which was explained by the petitioner in exhibit P2, which seems to be bona fide. In the circumstances, I quash exhibit P3 and direct the respondent to accept the declaration as fully satisfied and to give the relief to the petitioner as per the VDI Scheme.
-
2004 (5) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction under section 80HHC - "1. Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80HHC even though the export business resulted in a loss of Rs. 6,372? 2. Whether, Tribunal is right in law in holding that commission and brokerage for procuring export contracts for other exporters is exempt under section 80HHC on the ground that the same is export profits?" - We answer both the questions raised in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2004 (5) TMI 25 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question of law – grant of registration - Perusal of the two orders of the Tribunal, i.e., the order passed in the second appeal and the one passed by dismissing the application made under section 256(1) of the Act would show that no question of law is involved in this case - In our opinion, the grant of registration does not in itself involve any question of law as such. Moreover, in this case it does not involve any interpretation of sections 185 to 187 of the Income-tax Act, nor does it involve any question of law as such on admitted facts - We are of the view that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the application made by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Act and hence, we do not find any merit in this application. – Application dismissed
-
2004 (5) TMI 24 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the land transferred by the assessee and the amounts of Rs. 4,00,000 and Rs. 6,00,000 put in the trusts did not attract the provisions of the Gift-tax Act because the lands belong to the Hindu undivided family and the amounts put in the trusts came out of the privy purse payments which were properties of the family?" - question is, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee
-
2004 (5) TMI 23 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - reason to believe that there was any escapement of income chargeable to tax - petitioner receives commission from airlines, for booking with hotels, airlines, railways and other transporters for tourists - claim was made under section 80HHD - The relevant facts were taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment which we have indicated hereinabove and, therefore, there is no question of any escapement of income chargeable to income-tax. Therefore, in our opinion, this is a case of wrongful assumption of jurisdiction and as such the notices, the speaking orders and the assessment orders made in pursuance of the notices are required to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly set aside. - The petition is allowed
-
2004 (5) TMI 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order whereby the application of the assessee for recalling an order passed ex parte, was allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal - Revenue raised a question that the Tribunal has no power to review the entire order - In the instant case, the Tribunal decided the appeal on the merits and thereafter the Tribunal was approached for setting aside the ex parte order. The rules framed under section 255 of the Income-tax Act permit the Tribunal to set aside the order and to restore the matter for hearing in accordance with law - there is no substantial question of law and, therefore, this revenue’s appeal is required to be dismissed
-
2004 (5) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Penalty of Rs. 5,000 under section 272A(1)(c) - assessee submitted that there was no deliberate attempt on his part not to respond to the summons under section 131(1) of the Act. No doubt, he had submitted an adjournment application for the second time on the ground that he had gone out of station on account of business tour. - we are inclined to allow the petition in so far as imposition of the penalty of Rs. 5,000 under section 272A(1)(c) of the Act is concerned.
....
|
