Home Case Index All Cases Income TaxIncome Tax Section Wise 2009 2009 2009 (3) Income Tax - 2009 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Income Tax - Case Laws

Showing 141 to 160 of 182 Records

• 2009 (3) TMI 76
  

  Commission Agent agreements with foreign company was in Individual names of the MD – commission was booked in the books of account of the company – an investigation revealed that entire exercise has been undertaken by the Company to absolve Shri Amin (MD) from violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act - receipt of the payment having been acknowledged by authorized person of the assessee Company – held that entire amount of commission is taxable in the hands of company.

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 74
  

  AO ordered special audit u/s 142(2A) – All the four Assessees allowed the said audit to be completed – on the basis of audit report AO made addition u/s 143 - the present petition has been filed which is clearly an after thought – On scrutiny of the records it was found that AO has granted opportunity of being heard to two assessee company only – held that audit u/s 142(2A) is valid in case of two company only and not valid in case of other two companies where no opportunity of being heard granted.

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 73
  

  Manufacture - business of making transformer core from CRGO/CRNO Coils - findings of facts, by Tribunal are that after completion of all the processes, CRGO/CRNO coils get converted into transformer core which is the end product which can be used in mfg. of transformer - Tribunal , while recording majority opinion & giving due credence to the opinion of the technical experts of the field, is right in holding that assessee is engaged in manufacturing article and is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 70
  

  Claim for deduction u/s 80HH was disallowed by AO holding that the assessee carried on manufacturing activity in Kalol Taluka which is excluded from the list of ‘backward area” by Not. 89/165 dated 19.12.1986- Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that the assessee had commenced production prior to October,1986 and the evidence in support of the said finding was not disputed by Revenue in earlier A.Y – following the same, Tribunal is right in allowing the claim of assessee for deduction

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 68
  

  In assessee’s own case revenue’s appeal stand dismissed by tribunal, HC and by SC - in absence of any independent reasoning in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the earlier orders of High Court are required to be followed and applied - Tribunal is right concluding that share income from the firm of the 2 smaller HUFs cannot be clubbed in the hands of the bigger HUF– therefore revenue’s appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 67
  

  Whether Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80I in respect of the interest income earned on the securities as well as the interest income earned on FDRs – Held, no - Whether Tribunal is right in directing not to exclude trading profit while computing deduction u/s 80I – in absence of any finding by the Tribunal that there is any trading profit, this question is not required to be answered as not arising out of the impugned order of Tribunal

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 66
  

  Sale of property - partition of HUF - capital gains – amount paid by each of the assessees (mother and father) to the other two members (their sons) of the HUF for acquisition of their share in the immovable property - amount paid would be termed to be the cost of acquisition to the assessees u/s 48, being cost of acquisition of the additional interest or additional share – while computing capital gains on sale of their respective share, deduction of amount paid is admissibleSale of property - partition of HUF - capital gains – amount paid by each of the assessees (mother and father) to the other two members (their sons) of the HUF for acquisition of their share in the immovable property - amount paid would be termed to be the cost of acquisition to the assessees u/s 48, being cost of acquisition of the additional interest or additional share – while computing capital gains on sale of their respective share, deduction of amount paid is admissibleSale of property - partition of HUF - capital gains – amount paid by each of the assessees (mother and father) to the other two members (their sons) of the HUF for acquisition of their share in the immovable property - amount paid would be termed to be the cost of acquisition to the assessees u/s 48, being cost of acquisition of the additional interest or additional share – while computing capital gains on sale of their respective share, deduction of amount paid is admissible

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 65
  

  Assessee-company took over the assets & liabilities of another company – AO made addition on basis that claim of deduction of duty paid by said company had been disallowed - assessee company claiming deduction of the purchase price paid for the stock acquired on amalgamation - Tribunal was justified in deleting additions by holding that an amount allowed as deduction u/s 43B to the amalgamating sister concern would not be liable to be included in hands of successor amalgamating company

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 64
  

  Reassessment order – notice u/s 148 - it is apparent that the action of the respondent authority in framing the reassessment order, without first disposing of the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner, cannot be sustained - Accordingly, the reassessment order is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent authority is directed to first dispose of preliminary objections by passing a speaking order and only thereafter proceed with the reassessment proceedings in accordance with law

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 61
  

  Expenditures – allowability - Amount paid towards job work charges for repairs and maintenance – assessee failed to furnish evidence regarding regular services rendered by one for maintenance of machinery – expenditure are not allowable u/s 40A(2) - in relation to Legal and Professional charges, on ground that expenditure is excessive and unreasonable, all the three authorities are correct in holding that such services were hit by provisions of Section 40A(12) – assessee’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 60
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - factum of concealment stands established on the facts and circumstance and the evidence on record - fact that assessee not having challenged any of the assessment orders for the 3 years, is indicative of acceptance that there was concealment of income - conduct of the assessee does not indicate that revised returns were filed voluntarily and in good faith - Tribunal finding that revised returns were not voluntary and thereafter upholding the penalties is finding of fact

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 59
  

  Application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income – petitioner challenging the order of respondent-authority rejecting the application - contention of assessee that the impugned order does not contain any reasons, does not merit acceptance because the order categorically states that the reasons offered by the assessee for delay, have not been found fit to warrant condonation of delay – respondent-authority is right in rejecting Condonnation application – petition is dismissed

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 58
  

  Compensatory service charges – taxable under head “Income from Property” or “Income from Other Sources” - two of the four co-owners having been assessed separately under two different heads, accordingly, in case of respondent-assessee, revenue can’t club the incomes under the head “Income from Property” - Tribunal rightly hold that compensatory service charges cannot be included in the annual letting value - Learned advocate for the applicant was not in a position to point out that any remedial action has been taken in so far as assessments of the other two co-owners are concerned - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 56
  

  Whether the amount paid to assessee-employee under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is entitled for deduction - assessee has filed a return of income claiming exemption under Section 10(10C) and also relief under Section 89(1) – question is answered in affirmative in favour of assessee – revenue appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 53
  

  Application for stay - Demand - Against the demand, an appeal has been preferred by assessee before CIT(A). The Assessee had applied for stay before the AO which has been rejected – Now, Assessee is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 crore with the AO within 4 days of the accounts of the Assessee petitioner being defreezed - CIT(A) is directed to hear the appeal pending before it expeditiously, after giving due opportunity to the appellant - balance demand is stayed till the disposal and final hearing by CIT(A)

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 52
  

  Offences and prosecution - categorical finding given by Tribunal that claim of depreciation by the petitioners was genuine – therefore, it does not arise for consideration that there was any evasion of tax by the petitioners – subsequently, there could be no presumption of the culpable mental state or any intention of tax evasion – prosecution quashed – HC while exercising its inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is competent to do substantial justice by quashing the complaint & summoning order

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 50
  

  Claim for weighted deduction u/s.35C on Expenses incurred on provision of Distillation services; Expenses on transportation services provided to farmers; Depreciation on assets used for Agricultural Research Centre, Fertilizer subsidy to farmers as cash subsidy – Tribunal is justified in disallowing the claim of assessee for weighted deduction on above expenses and depreciation

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 49
  

  Whether Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of assessee-company for weighted deduction u/s 35C on Expenses incurred on provision of Distillation services, Expenses on transportation services provided to farmers, Expenses incurred on Mentha Administration Services, Expenses on distillation services including depreciation on assets used for distillation services and on assets used for Mentha Research Centre – questions are answered in the affirmative and against the assessee

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 48
  

  Claim for weighted deduction u/s 35C in respect of expenses on research in mentha research centre, expenses on distillation services provided to the cultivators; expenses on scientific farming – tribunal is justified in disallowing assessee’s claim for weighted deduction on above expenses - Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of deduction of sur-tax payable under the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, in working out the business income was not admissible

  ---

• 2009 (3) TMI 47
  

  Tribunal rejected claim for weighted deduction u/s 35C on Expenses incurred on distillation services of farmers, transportation services provided to farmers and Depreciation on Distillation Assets - held that deduction u/s 35C not admissible on expenses on distillation services and depreciation on distillation asset – transportation services were in respect of transporting of crops and had no relation to any goods, services or facilities as outlined u/s 35C – tribunal rightly rejected the claim

  ---

1 ....45678910