|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1487 Records
-
2002 (12) TMI 659 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... getting job work done from M/s Sheetal Synthetics P. Ltd. as per commercial contracts and paying fair market value of goods, the assessee had advanced interest free funds as the assessee was paying job work charges to that company. As against this, the ld. D/R of revenue has relied on the orders of authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival contentions, the material on record as also the cited decisions. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and in particular the fact that the assessee having not charged interest from M/s Sheetal Synthetics on commercial expediency, there was no real income of this amount of notional interest and that the assessee had its own enough interest free funds to cover those interest free advances, and also following the above mentioned judicial decisions, we find this disallowance to be not warranted and justified. We, therefore, delete the same. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed in part as indicated above.
-
2002 (12) TMI 648 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cle 226 can only be exercised under the exceptional circumstances and in case there is a gross violation in issuance of notice under section 148 only. In the instant case I do not find any gross violation committed by the respondents while issuing the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. 37. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not want to interfere in the notices issued by the respondents. However, petitioners are at liberty to raise all legal as well as factual objections before the competent authority and before the Income-tax Officer and Income-tax Officer is expected to decide the objections filed by the petitioners legally and factually and then pass the final order in accordance with the provisions of the law regarding reassessment proceedings after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within the period of two months from the date of this order. 38. With these observations, these 10 writ petitions are being disposed of. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 644 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d the material placed before us. AO has recorded a finding that as per the Tax Audit Report, there was a capital expenditure of ₹ 66,640/- debited to the Profit & Loss Account. In view of the above, he disallowed the sum of ₹ 66,640/-. Before the CIT(A) it was pointed out that the expenditure was incurred for purchase of 13 canteen trolleys. The CIT(A), after considering the submission of the assessee's counsel, directed to treat the same as revenue expenditure. 89. We have heard both the parties and considered their arguments. Admittedly the expenditure was incurred on purchase of 13 new canteen trolleys. The cost of each trolley was above ₹ 5,000/-. Considering this fact, in our opinion, the expenditure was capital expenditure and the same cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. We, therefore, reverse the order of the CIT(A) on this point and allow Ground No. 15 of the revenue's appeal. 90. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 639 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imed under section 80P(2)(a)( iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the receipts from its members by way of interest ?" The facts of this case are covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in CIT v. Krishak Sahkari Ganna Samiti Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri 2002 125 Taxman 767. 3. Following the said decision the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2002 (12) TMI 638 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year." ( 5. ) The assessing officer could assess or reassess such income which has escaped assessment as the case may be for the assessment year concerned subject to the provisions of Sections 148 and 153 of the Act. ( 6. ) In our view, therefore, the High Court erred in quashing the show-cause notice only on the basis of Section 147(a). The show-cause notice must be restored. We make it clear that the assessee's contention that the statement of its Chief Executive was incorrect or in any event has been misunderstood is left open for being decided in the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act as may be commenced on the basis of the impugned notice. ( 7. ) The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside, The proceedings under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 1986-1987 are, accordingly, revived. ( 8. ) There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 636 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d the prosecution proceedings referred above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against orders Annexures 6 and 7, the CIT (Appeals) dismissed its appeal vide Annexures 8 dated 7-3-1990, however, learned Tribunal has accepted the second appeal vide order dated 11-12-1997, for both the assessment years, deleting the penalty referred above. A copy of the order dated 11-12-1997 has been filed today, with the prayer that when penalty itself has been quashed criminal prosecution should also be set aside. It is further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Singhvi Bros. SAW No. 128 of 1990 dated 14-11-2002 has held that if penalty is quashed, prosecution need not continue. 4. Learned counsel for the Department is not in a position to controvert the Division Bench judgment referred to hereinabove. 5. Consequently, there is merit in this petition and the same is accepted and Annexures 11, 12 and 13 to the writ petition are hereby quashed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 634 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mpermissible for the learned counsel for the Revenue to refer to the said document. 10. Learned counsel for the assessee therefore submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal so that the Appellate Tribunal may consider the question, for such course of action the counsel for Revenue did not object. Hence, we return the reference without answering the question of law referred to us. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider the question afresh in the light of the principles laid down earlier and in the light of the decisions referred to by us in our judgment. It is made clear that it is open to the parties to let in fresh evidence before the Appellate Tribunal. It is also made clear that it is open to the Appellate Tribunal to remit the matter to the lower authorities for fresh consideration. 11. Accordingly, the reference is disposed of without answering the question, but with a direction for fresh hearing. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 633 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... nsel appearing for the appellant started his arguments at 2.45 p.m. and concluded at 3.35 p.m. Thereafter Mr. B.B. Ahuja, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents started his arguments and was on his legs when the Court rose for the day. The matter remained part-heard.
-
2002 (12) TMI 632 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nal was correct in holding that the subsidy given by the State Government is capital receipt and not liable to tax. In view of the answer given to the first question, we are of the view that it is not necessary for us to answer the second question. Accordingly, we are not answering the second question. 3. As far as the third question is concerned, it is fairly submitted that the said question is to be answered in favour of the assessee in view of the earlier decision of this Court in CIT v. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 1998 229 ITR 285, wherein this Court has considered a similar issue and held that the amount transferred to Molasses Storage Fund under a statutory obligation did not form part of the assessee’s total income. Following the said decision of this Court, we answer the third question of law referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In view of the circumstances of the case, there will be no order was to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 628 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ade by the assessee to the effect that since the Assessing Officer himself has computed the profits from the business at ₹ 65,28,776, after allowing the full deduction of Rs, 2,50,00,000 under section 33AC, 25 thereof should be allowed as deduction under section 80-I. This claim also cannot be accepted because this figure not only includes the profits from the ship "Prabhu Das" but also includes the profits of the ship "Prabhu Gopal" which is not eligible for deduction under section 80-I. The deduction can be given only from the profits of "Prabhu Das" and in the absence of anything to show what amount of profits from "Prabhu Das" are included in the said figure, even the alternative claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. 16. We therefore uphold the orders of the departmental authorities, with regard to the assessee’s claim under section 80-I and dismiss the second ground. 17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 627 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iness, however, the excise duty rebate or excise duty incentive would not form part of income from the business assessable to tax under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act. Since a consolidated amount is referred to in the question, the Appellate Tribunal is directed to determine which part of the amount would represent the purchase price and which part of the amount would represent excise duty rebate or excise duty incentive which is not taxable under the Income-tax Act. Though we technically answer the question of law referred to in paragraph 2 of the judgment in favour of the Revenue, we remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to consider and determine the question which part of the amount would represent the purchase price which is taxable under the Income-tax Act as business income and which part of the amount would represent the excise duty rebate or excise duty incentive which is not taxable under the Income-tax Act. The question is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 618 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... provisions of section 37(3A) of the Act ?" 2. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of presenting the gift articles to the subscribers of chit at the time of joining the scheme and at the time of conclusion of the chit would amount to sales promotion expenses. A similar question was considered by this Court for the earlier assessment year in the case of same assessee and this Court by its order in T.C. No. 1216 of 1987 dated 29-4-1999 held that the expenditure would be of sales promotion expenditure and subject to the ceiling under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act. 3. The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the above decision covers the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the assessee also submits the same. Accordingly, following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the common question of law referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 617 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1985-86 to 1989-90. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in his fairness submits that the issue raised in the common questions is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Venu Suresh Sheela Trust 1998 233 ITR 99. We are of the view that it is a case of a Trust and the shares of the beneficiaries are specified and known and therefore, it cannot be assessed as Association of Persons under the provisions of section 161 and 161(1A) of the Income-tax Act. We have also taken a similar view in T.C. Nos. 210 and 211 of 1998 ("The Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu II, Madras v. M/s Mecca Trust") dated 29-10-2002 holding that the assessee was not liable to be assessed in the status of Association of Persons. Following the said decisions, we answer the common question of law referred to us for several assessment years against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 616 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ct of amount of tax payable under the provisions of section 115JA of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the some Tribunal decisions and the judgments of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. v. CIT 2000 243 ITR 5191. The learned D.R. has relied upon the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 1993 45 ITD 22 (Cal.) and the judgments of various High Courts in Kerala State Coir Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India 1994 210 ITR 1212 (Ker.), Assam Bengal Carriers Ltd. v. CIT 1999 239 ITR 862 (Gauhati) and Itarsi Oils & Flours (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 2001 250 ITR 686 3 (MP). We find that the preponderance of judicial opinion is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Respectfully following the view supported by various High Courts’ judgments relied upon by the learned D.R., we reject this ground of appeal of the assessee. 18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 615 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tions made by it to the banks with whom the goods had been hypothecated for the purpose of obtaining overdraft facilities was deleted by the Tribunal on the ground that though the declarations made to the banks were only rough estimates the correct declarations had been made in the returns submitted to the Textile Commissioner and these tallied with the assessee’s books. In that factual situation, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the addition made on the basis of the declaration made to the bank was not correct. This decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case, for the very reasons stated above. 13. In fine, the order of the Tribunal, for the reasons as stated above is not legally sustainable and liable to be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer has to be restored. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the question in negative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. However, there is no order as to costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 604 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... observed that the amount provided towards warranty is contingent upon being quantified in the subsequent year, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the provisions made by the assessee as an admissible deduction? 3. Having regard to the fact that the provision made by the assessee towards warranty is a liability on the contingency of the goods becoming defective within the terms of warranty clause, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions made by the Assessee thereon is an allowable business expenditure?" 2. It is fairly stated by Mrs. Pushya Sitharaman, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue that issue raised in this case is covered against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in T.C. No. 85 of 1997 dated 9-9-2002. 3. Following the said judgment and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the questions of law referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
2002 (12) TMI 566 - ITAT AMRITAR
... ...
... ... ..... t in the case of Fifth Generation Education Society v. CIT 1990 185 ITR 634 wherein it has been held that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax was required to see as to whether the objects of the trust were charitable or not. He is further required to see as to whether the application was made in accordance with the requirements of section 12A read with rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Furthermore, it has been held in the aforesaid case that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not required to examine the application of income. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in refusing registration to the assessee merely on the basis that the trust deed was not registered with Registrar of Societies or with the Registrar of Documents. We accordingly reverse his order and direct him to grant registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 565 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ) is in the affirmative. rdquo Having regard to the above, I am of the view that in the light of the law as it existed during the year under consideration, the learned Accountant Member was fully justified in holding that the assessee should be entitled to depreciation as well as investment allowance on the enhanced liability in respect of the cost of the assets concerned due to fluctuation in the exchange rate. This view is further fortified by the decision of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 88 ITR 192 wherein it was held that if the court finds that the language of the taxing provision is ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one, then the court has to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee, more particularly so when the provision relates to the imposition of penalty. I, therefore, concur with the learned Accountant Member. The matter will go before the regular Bench for decision, according to majority opinion.
-
2002 (12) TMI 560 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Deductions - Income of co-operative societies ... ... ... ... ..... d to distinguish above case by referring to the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. B. Seshamma v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 314 where interest allowed was taken to be income from other sources. This way, action of the Assessing Officer was sought to be justified. However, after considering the facts of the case we are inclined to agree with the view taken by our brothers in the case of the assessee in assessment year 1991-92. The decision cited on behalf of the Revenue is distinguishable and the question whether interest allowed bore the same character did not arise in that case. There interest received was claimed to be a capital receipt and not taxable. Accordingly, we respectfully follow the aforesaid decision and hold that interest allowed to the assessee was exempt and not taxable. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 1993-94 is dismissed whereas those of the assessee for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 are allowed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 559 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... f instrument of partnership, as one of the partners being non-resident, was not in India. From the acts on record, we find that no interference is required in the order of ld. CIT(A), as the assessee has complied with the provisions of section 184(2), in substance. Photocopy of the partnership deed was signed by all the partners and the attesting witnesses. When a document is duly signed in original by all the partners and witnesses, it cannot be brushed aside merely because the assessee has not marked thereon as lsquo certified to be true copy rsquo . The basic requirement of section 184 is that the instrument of partnership must be signed by all the partners, so that the Assessing Officer could verify that all the partners whose names are mentioned, are genuine partners. On totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to grant registration to the assessee-firm. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
........
|
