|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1482 Records
-
1996 (12) TMI 398 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... king of entertainment tax and penalty for the period prior to that date could never have been made. It appears that there is some substance in the submission revolving round this ground. The Revisional Authority is required to consider the petitioners' case in that respect. Hence, the following order is passed - The impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority (the Entertainment Tax Commissioner) on 1/10/1996 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Revisional Authority (the Entertainment Tax Commissioner) for considering the revision strictly on merits. The Revisional Authority shall decide the Revision Application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of this direction. The petitioners shall be heard before deciding the Revision Application on all the ground including grounds stated in this judgment. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ings cannot be regarded as profits and gains derived from the conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity. In this connection it may be pointed out that whenever the Legislature wanted to give a restricted meaning in the manner suggested by the learned Solicitor General it has used the expression "derived from", as for instance in Section 80-J. In our view, since the expression of wider import, namely, "attributable to" has been used, the Legislature intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business of generation and distribution of electricity." In our opinion the said observations conclude the issue, as has been rightly held in the later decision of the Madras High Court. Accordingly these appeals are allowed, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the question referred to the High Court is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 136 - ITAT PUNE
Interest On Borrowed Capital, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... tilised for the purpose of construction. Before the Assessing Officer also the assessee stated in very clear and unequivocal terms that the borrowed money was utilised for the purpose of construction. The Assessing Officer simply raised a doubt as to this fact. He adumbrated on certain possibilities. One of such possibility was also utilisation of the funds for business purposes. This enquiry was concerning the allowability of claim under section 24. The assessee is not aggrieved for the rejection of claim under section 24. The CIT(A) allowed the claim without establishing the nexus of the expenditure with the business. 12. I have perused the reasonings given by the learned Accountant Member and also the reasonings given by the learned Judicial Member. I am inclined to agree with the reasonings given by the learned Accountant Member for the reasons given hereinbefore. 13. The matter will now go back to the regular Bench and be disposed by it according to the majority opinion.
-
1996 (12) TMI 133 - ITAT PATNA
Penalty, For Late Filing Of Return ... ... ... ... ..... e but as a matter of fact, after the decision-in Ganesh Dass Sreeram s case they are unanimous in saying so. The decision of this Court in Jamunadas Munnalal, no doubt, had held to the contrary but in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Dass Sreeram s case, interpreted and applied unanimously by different High Courts the same cannot be said to be laying down the correct law on the point and, therefore, I find it difficult to follow the same. 6. In view of the Hon ble Patna High Court that the decision in Jamunadas Munnalal s case has been overruled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in their judgment in Ganesh Dass Sreeram s case I hold that the reference ought to have been granted to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. Thus, I fully agree with Shri V.K. Sinha, the learned Accountant Member s order dated 9-3-1995. I direct that the matter should go back before the Division Bench which is expected to follow the majority view in this matter.
-
1996 (12) TMI 132 - ITAT PATNA
Technical Collaboration Agreement, TDS, Technical Services, Lumpsum, Avoidance Of Double Taxation Agreement
-
1996 (12) TMI 131 - ITAT PATNA
Assessment Year, Carry Forward, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... t compartments. 11. No doubt, in commercial and accountancy parlance the word Loss includes depreciation. To this extent observations in the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court Garden Silk Wvg. Factory s case , relied upon by the ld. D.R., is relevant. But the facts of that case were not similar and were distinguishable. The issue involved in that case was also not similar. Therefore, the Hon ble Supreme Court s observations in that case are not applicable in the present case. 12. The special treatment for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) of the Act places the matter in different shape from the common commercial and accounting principles. 13. In the above view of the matter we hold that the unabsorbed depreciation of assessment year 1985-86 was eligible for carry forward as per section 32(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) for all the three years. 14. In the result, all the three departmental appeals are dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 124 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... he purpose of computing interest. In any case, the issue is highly debatable and is beyond the scope of s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. In the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. vs. K.S. Pathania (1992) 102 CTR (Bom) 194 (1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom), the Hon ble Bombay High Court held that the disallowance of the claim for deduction can be made only on the basis of the information available in the return and in the documents and accounts accompanying it, in other words, the claim is solely prima facie inadmissible. Whether, self-assessment tax payment is includible or not for the purpose of computing interest under s. 234A, being highly debatable issue, it was beyond the scope of s. 143(1)(a). 7. In the light of the above discussion, we direct the AO to recompute the taxable income for the purpose of computing interest under s. 234A of the Act and not to exclude the self-assessment tax under s. 140A paid by the assessee on 27th July, 1993. 8. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 121 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Assessment Year, Deduction In Respect, Scientific Research Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... s reasonable. We dismiss this ground of appeal. 11. The next ground of appeal is that CIT(A) erred in inviting the provisions of section 271(1)(c) which is not justified. There is no appeal against initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. 12. During the course of hearing, it was argued by the learned counsel of the assessee that department is considering the income of M/s. George Wines in the hands of the firm. That issue is not before us and, therefore, we are not giving any finding in respect of that issue. We have given our findings in respect of donations made by the assessee to SRS and Aparna Ashram because the assessee has claimed deductions and claim of the assessee was negatived by the authorities below. Therefore, the arguments of the assessee s counsel in this regard does not arise out of the order of the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) and cannot be considered. 13. In the result, appeal is treated as partly allowed
-
1996 (12) TMI 120 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Industrial Undertaking, Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Rate Of Depreciation, Special Rate
-
1996 (12) TMI 117 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Accounting Year, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Business Income, Business Profits, Capital Gains, Capital Loss, Previous Year, Profit On Sale, Purchase And Sale, Tax Liability, Tea Estate
-
1996 (12) TMI 116 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Accumulated Loss, Accumulated Profits, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Commercial Profit, Deemed Dividend
-
1996 (12) TMI 115 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Additions To Income, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Carrying On Business ... ... ... ... ..... idence on record to support the addition of Rs. 2 lakhs, we set aside the issue to his file because the fact that the assessee has contested the matter in first appeal before the CIT(A) clearly shows that the offer of Rs. 2 lakhs by the assessee was not voluntary and the Assessing Officer did not bring any evidence on record to justify the addition made by him. It is clarified that the Assessing Officer would be free to make enquiries in the matter for the purpose of finding out the concealment of income, if any, by the assessee and the assessee should co-operate with the Assessing Officer and furnish whatever particulars are required. If the assessee fails to co-operate in the matter, then the Assessing Officer could take into consideration the assessee s agreement for addition of Rs. 2 lakhs also. The Assessing Officer should afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, for statistical purposes, the assessee s appeal is treated as allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 109 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... lay in obtaining tax audit report for the immediately preceding assessment years. Unless the accounts are finalised and the tax audit report is obtained for the earlier assessment years it is neither possible nor conceivable to finalise the accounts as well as to obtain the tax audit report for subsequent years. Admittedly, the tax audit report for the asst. yr. 1985-86 was obtained by the assessee in November, 1990. Immediately thereafter the tax audit report for the asst. yr. 1986-87 was obtained by May, 1991, and within one or two months for the subsequent years. The delay in obtaining the tax audit report for the assessment years in question was clearly due to delay in obtaining tax audit report for the asst. yr. 1985-86. On the above circumstances we do not find any justification in levying penalty under s. 271B. We, therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) and cancel the penalties levied for the assessment years in question. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 108 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Prima Facie Adjustment ... ... ... ... ..... t proviso to section 143(1)(a). In that view of the matter, the Assessing Officer exceeded his limited jurisdiction under section 143(1)(a) in disallowing the claim by way of prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a) at the intimation stage itself and making the impugned addition and levying additional tax under section 143(1A). When the assessee moved a petition under section 154 of the Income-tax Act for rectification of the intimation, the Assessing Officer should have realised his mistake at least then and rectified the mistake by deleting the impugned addition. He did not do so, in his order dated 21-4-1993. The learned CIT(Appeals), in our considered opinion, very rightly deleted the impugned addition observing that the issue is a highly debatable one and would not fall within the purview of section 143(1)(a). For the reasons given, we are in entire agreement with the view taken by the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue. 25. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 107 - ITAT GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... tal Representative i.e., (1989) 176 ITR 215 (P and H), with due regards, is a non-speaking order as their Lordships have merely observed that the question whether the Tribunal was right in recalling its order amounts to question of law. It is not discernible as to whether the impugned order therein is final order of the Tribunal under s. 254(2) or an order recalling the original order of the Tribunal. At any rate from the judgment of the Hon ble High Court, we find that their Lordships were not seized of the question as to whether a reference can lie against the order in miscellaneous application which cannot be equated to final order passed under s. 254(2). In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the question sought for reference is misconceived at this stage as the order of the Tribunal in miscellaneous application cannot be the subject-matter of reference under s. 256(1) of the Act. 8. In the result, the reference application filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
1996 (12) TMI 106 - ITAT DELHI-D
Assessment Year, Ground Rent, Income From House Property, Let Out, Property Tax, Rental Income, Trading Receipt
-
1996 (12) TMI 105 - ITAT DELHI-B
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Being Heard, Late Filing, Waiver Of Interest ... ... ... ... ..... which it is shown to be filed is not decisive. The material thing is content and claim of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) in our view did not commit any error in reading application under section 154 as an application for waiver of interest under section 139(8) of I.T. Act. He did not accept the claim of the assessee but directed the Assessing Officer to examine it and allow appropriate relief. We see no error in the approach of CIT(A) particularly when it is not in dispute that assessee was not heard before charging interest and in the application there are circumstances which on verification may satisfy the ITO to reduce or waive the interest. Whether conditions for waiver of interest are satisfied or not is a different issue and is yet to be decided by the Assessing Officer. The direction of the learned CIT (Appeals) is quite in order and suffers from no infirmity. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order is confirmed. 9. In the result, revenue s appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 104 - ITAT DELHI-A
Prima Facie Adjustment ... ... ... ... ..... late authority, the same cannot be raised at the stage of hearing before the Tribunal. In the case of an assessee the subject matter of appeal relates to deduction under section 80-HHC of the Act. The issue that the assessment framed under section-1 43(3) is a nullity and non estgoes much beyond the subject-matter of appeal. As regards the decision in the case of Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. , we find that an admission of an income was first made in the return which was subsequently revised and prayer made for its exclusion was held to be-valid. The facts are distinguishable. 11. On merits, it is admitted by the learned authorised representative that issue is covered by the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of International Research Park Laboratories Ltd . In the circumstances the plea is rejected. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion on the issue, additional grounds of appeal cannot be admitted. 13. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 103 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Assessment Year, Time Limit For Completion, Time Limit For Completion, Tribunal's Order, Tribunal's Order
-
1996 (12) TMI 102 - ITAT COCHIN
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, High Court, Income Tax, Original Assessment, Sales Tax
........
|
