Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2003 2003 (2) 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

Case Laws

Showing 421 to 440 of 440 Records

• 2003 (2) TMI 21 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Profit arising from the sale of plot - Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the income of the assessee should be assessed under the head 'Capital gains' and not under the head 'Profit arising from the adventure in the nature of trade' as assessed by the Assessing Officer

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Expenditure incurred on VRS - incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business - this expense was not referable to any income-yielding asset – Held that revenue expenditure, which is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business, must be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it is incurred and it cannot be spread over a number of years even though the assessee has written it off in its books over a period of years

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 19 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Notices issued under section 147(a) – validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of supra the assessment for the three years in question were not made under section 143(3) ibid but were made under section 143(1) ibid where no enquiry could be made nor contemplated. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on Kesharimal Bapulal (HUF) v. CIT 2001 252 ITR 764 (MP) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO 1961 41 ITR 191 (SC) and Smt. Prabha Rajya Lakshmi v. WTO 1983 144 ITR 180 (MP). I find these cases to be distinguishable on facts involved in this case. The law decided must be applied to the identical facts when facts differ, the case law does not help. The same is the case here. In view of the aforesaid discussion I find no merit in the writ which fails and is dismissed. As a consequence all interim orders passed by this court in this writ are vacated. The Assessing Officer is directed to complete the reassessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices within a period of three years after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. No costs.

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Exemption under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - The Vidya Vikas Vihar, Nagpur, is a registered society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and it is engaged in imparting technical education to the students - assessee-institution solely existed for educational purposes - incidental object of constructing houses for weaker sections was never implemented or acted upon by the assessee in the relevant assessment year - Tribunal was justified in holding that income of the assessee is exempt under section 10(22) for the relevant years involved in the appeals

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, Tribunal was right in cancelling the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that no penalty can be levied where the assessed income is a loss, ignoring the provisions of Explanation 4 below section 271(1)(c), though holding that there was concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars by making wrong claim u/s 80HHC by the assessee? Whether Tribunal was right in observing that there was no concealment of income on account of adjustment of Rs. 1,07,27,006 being income for earlier years ignoring that the assessee had offered this amount of tax only after the issuance of notice u/s 148?" - We answer the questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 16 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Advance compensation received for the land acquired by the State Government - assessment year with respect to which the compensation can be brought to capital gains tax - sections 11(3) and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, makes it clear that the transfer is effective only on the passing of the award and on surrendering the documents of title and on getting the award amount pursuant thereto - the compensation received by the assessee as per the award dated December 18,1992, is the crucial date for determining the assessment year - entire award amount has to be assessed only during the assessment year 1993-94, as held by the first appellate authority

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 15 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, while computing the relief under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the processing charges (received by the assessee for processing cashew kernels belonging to third parties in the factory of the assessee) could be excluded from the turnover of the business? - that the processing charges received by the assessee cannot be included in the definition of total turnover in clause (ba) of the Explanation to section 80HHc. We are also of the view that the provisions of clauses (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of section 28 do not alter the position – Assessee’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Notice u/s 148 – limitation - the assessment is sought to be reopened after four years - since the conditions set out in section 147 of the Income-tax Act are not fulfilled, the notice issued for reopening the assessment must be held to be invalid and without jurisdiction – consequently, plea of the Revenue that the petition suffers from delay and laches cannot be sustained.

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Determination of the market value of the perquisite provided to the assessee by way of rent-free accommodation- computation of the value of perquisite – Held that for determination of the market value of the perquisite provided to the assessee by way of rent-free accommodation, the basis should be the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller in respect of similar accommodation by another person under section 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Determination of the market value of the perquisite provided to the assessee by way of rent-free accommodation- computation of the value of perquisite – Held that for determination of the market value of the perquisite provided to the assessee by way of rent-free accommodation, the basis should be the standard rent fixed by the Rent Controller in respect of similar accommodation by another person under section 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Income from Undisclosed Sources - only contention raised is that the Tribunal has committed error in deleting an addition of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of cars held by the assessee in the name of other parties - Tribunal has found that the Department has failed to produce any evidence that the subject vehicles were owned and possessed by the assessee, except the fact, that the names of the vehicles were written on the back page - On such material, it cannot be concluded that the vehicles were held benami by the assessee - In the instant case, it is not the case of the Revenue that the vehicles were found in the possession of the assessee. - No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is rejected.

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Tribunal quashing the order of Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 – When the revenue itself has accepted the order dated December 6, 2001, quashing the order passed by the assessing authority for the assessment year 1993-94 on the basis of notice under section 148 dated June 17, 1997, wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that it is a case of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act of 1961 and the appropriate previous year for inclusion is the relevant financial year and its genuineness has already been adjudicated upon by the assessing authority for the appropriate financial year, i.e., 1992-93 then how the order of the assessing authority can be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue – Tribunal was justified in quashing the CIT’s order

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether, Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals) cancelling the penalty of Rs. 17,22,818 levied u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO on account of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income by the assessee, which has come to the notice of the Revenue on account of a search under section 132 and pursuant whereto the assessee had filed a revised return declaring total income of Rs. 15,52,660 as against Rs. 6,17,370 offered in the original return?" - the undisclosed income disclosed in the revised return filed by the assessee was not noticed during the search operations and is not the subject matter of the seizure. Hence, as per the Board circular No. 423 the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the amnesty scheme. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and holding that no penalty was leviable upon the assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Reopening of assessment – limitation - reason to believe - In cases of reopening after four years, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts - In the present case, reopening is sought to be done beyond four years. In the present case, the assessee had filed its annual report before the Assessing Officer indicating spread over of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months. The Assessing Officer acted on that report by granting deduction to the extent of Rs. 33,40,818 for the year ending March 31,1996. In the circumstances, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts.

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 7 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there could be no element of deemed gift whereby sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) and dismissing the departmental appeal?" - we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is to say in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 6 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Cash credits - Whether Tribunal was justified in accepting the cash credit only on the identity of the creditor without verification of capacity/credit worthiness of the creditors? - Assessee has explained satisfactorily the cash credits in the books of account of the firm and discharged the burden. The Department has not brought out material or evidence to rebut the same – No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal – Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 5 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Computation of the book profit under section 115J. – adjusting the loss or the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years – sale of capital asset - clause (b) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 205 of the Companies Act - held that in this clause "loss" refers to the amount of loss arrived at after taking into account the amount of depreciation provided in the profit and loss account. Once it is found that the provisions of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 205 of the Companies Act are applicable in section 115J and the object of such incorporation of the said provisions of the Companies Act in section 115J is to allow set off of the losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The Tribunal elaborately considered the said provisions and rightly found that the assessee is entitled for adjusting the loss or the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years whichever is less in computation of the book profit under section 115J. It also considered the Board's circular. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Tribunal

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 4 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer as the issue of investment allowance was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) prior to the order under section 263? - It is crystal clear that if any aspect is within the scope and ambit of sub-section (2A), there is no limitation. As we have held that the assessment order remains as it is and there was an order passed by the appellate authority also which remained as it is, being undisturbed by the order passed under section 263, the bar of limitation would not come into effect. Hence, we are of the considered view that no question of law arises for calling for statement of the case.

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 3 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Section 144 - the best judgment assessment - whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the directions issued under section 144A, by the Additional Commissioner treating the partnership firm as an association of persons liable to assessment under section 185 are proper. – petitioner submit that it is possible to ascertain the profit. He contend that still there is possibility to ascertain the profit in case a firm is converted into a company then the business of the firm is succeeded by the company within the meaning of section 170(1) and the firm will be assessed up to the date of succession - plea of the petitioner to allow rectification of the defect if permissible; that has to be considered by the Additional Commissioner at the first instance not directly by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India - impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner is quashed. Writ petitions are partly allowed. The Additional Commissioner is directed to reconsider the matter under section 144A,

  ---

• 2003 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Service Tax – Department of Telecommunication (1) Other taxes (2) Used by subscriber (3) Sale (4) Supply of service along with goods (5) Composite contract (6) Distinction between sale and service

  ---

1 ....1819202122