|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1443 Records
-
2003 (12) TMI 674 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dures which would not only curtail unreasonable procedural delay, but give finality to the litigation at its earliest and, therefore, if it is legally possible and statutorily permissible, the interpretation, which will give rise to multiplicity of litigation, should be avoided. The observations made by Justice Krishna Iyer in this regard are relevant, which read thus -- "Early limitative finality is an utter unreality. Appeals, remands, revisions and reviews offer tantalizing opportunities for dilatory holidaying. Precipitous ,procrastinatory and procrustean justicing process often mar people's confidence in courts." For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. R. K. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, about the maintainability of the Misc. Civil Applications for review of the judgment of the Full Bench, dated 13th March, 2003, is upheld and, therefore, the Misc. Civil Applications are dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2003 (12) TMI 663 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eleased, it is not possible to take the view that such payment was made by way of fees as contended by Sri Seshachala. The language employed in the Rule makes it explicit that the amount required to be paid to get the bottled arrack released for sale without labels is by way of cost of labels to the Government. When the language in the Rule in explicit terms provide that the amount required to be paid towards the cost of labels and the Rule also impose an obligation on the licensee to get the labels affixed at his cost in the presence of the Warehouse Officer, it will not be correct to consider that the amount paid is not as a cost towards the value of labels, but as a fee. Therefore, the third submission of Sri M.V. Seshachala is also liable to be rejected. 11. Therefore, in the light of the discussion made above, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly it is rejected. However, no order is made as to costs.
-
2003 (12) TMI 649 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt of the amount of tax deducted at source for the purpose of the income-tax payable under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. The decision of the Income Tax Officer and the Board of Direct Taxes rejecting the petitioner's prayer for adjustment of the aforesaid amount are set aside. The Authorities are directed to give credit of and adjust the said amount of ₹ 65,989.32 against the income-tax payable under the Disclosure Scheme under the Voluntary Disclosure Act, 1976 and to reconsider whether the petitioner was otherwise entitled to get benefit of the said scheme. If the concerned authorities find that the petitioner was/is otherwise entitled to get benefit of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme all the assessment proceedings for the assessment years covered under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme would be deemed to have been dropped and the assessments orders in those proceedings withdrawn. 12. The rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
-
2003 (12) TMI 646 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hallenged by the Revenue by filing applications under Section 256(2) of the Act or not. Faced with the situation, Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, has attempted to argue that the impugned order is perverse inasmuch as the Tribunal has misdirected itself in relying on its earlier orders for the assessment year 1988-89. According to the learned counsel, the facts of those cases are distinguishable. However, on a pointed query by the Court as to whether such a plea was raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal, the answer of the learned counselwas in the negative. Nevertheless, even in the present appeal no such plea has been raised. In view of the above-stated factual scenario, when the view of the Tribunal on a similar issue has been accepted by the Revenue in respect of one of the years, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, survives for our consideration. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the appeal. Dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 644 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... luing it as urban land on which construction was to take place and was not sold for the purpose of agriculture. It was in the context of those facts that the court held that notwithstanding the classification of the land as agricultural land, having regard to the manner of its disposal, the purpose for which it is disposed and the short period of time within which the land was put to non- agricultural use by the buyer, the land was required to be regarded as non- agricultural land. Even while rendering that decision, the Supreme Court emphasised the fact that as to whether a piece of land is agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. 3. The Tribunal here has set out the factual finding given by the Commissioner which it has accepted and affirmed. It is not necessary to extract that part of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal's order clearly sets out all the relevant facts which would go to show that the land is agricultural land. Appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 636 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed. Similarly, the case of Apart Ltd. was also a case where no actual rent was received by the assessee and the Bench was concerned with the application of sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act. Therefore, both these cases are distinguishable. In the case of R. Dalmia ( supra), the question was whether municipal valuation can be considered as annual letting value of the property, which is not the case in the instant case. 33. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the revenue authorities cannot take into consideration the notional interest on the interest-free advances received by the assessee while determining the annual letting value of the rented property. We accordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below on this issue. Grounds 1 to 3 of the assessee are allowed. Paras 34. to 39. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
2003 (12) TMI 633 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... and no right of examination or cross-examination was allowed to the assessee. 265. We heard the rival submissions. The contradictions found in the statements of Shri Narayanan and the reasons stated by the Assessing Officer for not accepting the explanation of Shri Narayanan are sound. However, we find that subsequently Revenue has assessed Shri Narayanan on regular basis, and he has availed the benefit under KVSS against the said assessment. Since the assessment on Shri Narayanan has been completed on regular basis and his declaration under KVSS against this assessment has been accepted, it is now not open to Revenue to say that the assessment was done on protective basis. If it was actually done on protective basis, it should have been kept open by not accepting Shri Narayanan’s declaration under KVSS. In view of the above, we are of the view that this addition cannot be retained. Ordered accordingly. 266. In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 586 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... pted by the Department by not filing any further appeal in that year. I have already mentioned hereinabove that the rule of consistency will apply on the facts of the present case justifying deletion of the said addition in the year under consideration. I have carefully gone through the order proposed by the then learned Vice-President. He has given elaborate and convincing reasons in support of his conclusion that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 96,09,720. The facts and discussions made hereinbefore fully support the view taken by the then learned Vice President. After giving a very deep and thoughtful consideration to the entire relevant material, I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the then learned Vice-President holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly deleted the said addition of Rs. 96,09,720. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for decision according to the majority opinion.
-
2003 (12) TMI 580 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... He states that before completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer shall dispose of the objections raised in Annexure A-10 by passing a speaking order thereon. 2. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in the following terms (i)Annexure P-22 dated 11th March, 2002, is quashed. (ii)The Assessing Officer shall pass a speaking order on the application of the petitioner dated 18th Feb., 2002 (Annexure P-10) within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While passing the order, the Assessing Officer shall also dispose of the objections, which may be raised by the petitioner qua the validity of notice under section 148. (iii)The assessment shall be completed within a period of one month thereafter. 3. It is, however, clarified that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the order passed by the assessing authority on his application dated 18th Feb., 2002. He shall be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.
-
2003 (12) TMI 579 - ITAT MUMBAI
Preliminary expenses, Business expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... It was argued by the learned Authorised Representative that this issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Marvel Equity (P.) Ltd. as per ITA No. 271/M/2000 placed on page Nos. 71 to 76 of the paper book. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the learned CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and gone through the order of the Tribunal as cited by the learned Authorised Representative. We are of the considered opinion that the facts of the case in hand being similar, the issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee and respectfully following the order of the Tribunal we delete this addition. This ground of the assessee also succeeds. 9. Ground No. 4 is regarding the deduction under section 80M. This ground was not pressed by the learned Authorised Representative, hence, dismissed as not pressed. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 578 - ITAT MUMBAI
Business expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the Consultant. Even no bill has been raised by C.C. and L.C. on the assessee for this payment of Rs. 21,00,000. The A.R. is stressing on the fact that 60 per cent of the payment was released within a short period from the date of the appointment of the Consultant but receipt of this amount by the assessee firm from BMC also does not in itself prove that any service was rendered by the Consultant in this regard. The payment was made by BMC as per the award and the onus was on the assessee to prove that services were actually rendered by the consultant in getting the payment released from BMC. But, the assessee could not bring any material on record in this regard. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any justification of interference in the order of the learned CIT(A) and this ground of assessee fails. 25. Ground Nos. 5 and 6 are general in nature and does not call for any adjudication. 26. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 577 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s is not a case where the lower authorities found anything against the object of introducing of section 269SS as there was neither a search nor such unaccounted money was unearthed which has been manipulated in the records. The assessee was under a bona fide belief that the declaration of those persons through assessee-company account will be the better evidence in support of the declaration under VDIS. Since the department has accepted the VDIS of those persons, the bona fide of the assessee cannot be ruled out. When the assessee is in bona fide belief which amounts to reasonable cause and in case of reasonable cause penalty under section 271D is not leviable. Under the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any justification in the action of the Assessing Officer for levying penalty under section 271D. We therefore set aside the orders of the lower authorities and the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 is cancelled. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 318 - ITAT PATNA
Business Disallowance, Prima Facie Adjustments ... ... ... ... ..... ent under section 143(1)(a) was made on account of the provisions of section 43B on the basis of evidence regarding payments had not been enclosed with the return of income, can the appellate authorities allow relief to the assessee on the basis of evidence of payment subsequently filed? 2. The Ld. 3rd Member has agreed with the order of the Ld. Accountant Member. At the time of hearing of this matter for passing order inconformity with the order passed by the Ld. 3rd Member none was present on behalf of the respondent. The departmental representative also did not make any submission at the time of the hearing but agreed with the order of the 3rd Member. Therefore, in accordance with the majority view the disallowance under section 43B are as under (i) Bonus - Rs. 8,534 (ii) Interest claimed in respect of loan from SIDBI - Rs. 2,09,83,719 3. Accordingly order of the Ld. CIT(A) is modified. 3.1 In the result both the departmental appeals and cross-objections are partly allowed
-
2003 (12) TMI 316 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ause with the respondent for taking/accepting deposits/loans and suo motu advances of Rs. 12,55,000 in cash in violation of s. 269SS, therefore, imposition of penalty of Rs. 12,55,000 by Addl. CIT, Range-I, is arbitrary and unwarranted. 2. Alternatively, the quantum of penalty of Rs. 12,55,000 under s. 271D imposed by the Addl. CIT, Range-I, Raipur, is arbitrary and excessive which requires to be reduced. Since the CIT(A) has not rendered any specific finding on the plea of reasonable cause pleaded by the assessee, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the plea raised by the assessee. The assessee will be at liberty to plead and prove his case of reasonable cause before the CIT(A). With this direction, the cross-objection of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the Revenue rsquo s appeal is allowed whereas the assessee rsquo s cross-objection is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2003 (12) TMI 315 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ee and he did not raise any objection as is now sought to be raised by the learned Departmental Representative before us. The CIT(A), as a first appellate authority, has inherent power to direct production of additional, evidence under r. 46A(4). Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (1998) 148 CTR (Bom) 192 (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom). 7.3. Looking into all these circumstances as brought out in the order if the CIT(A), we are of the view that the CIT(A) was justified in coming to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 8.50 lakhs deposited in the joint account was, not the money of the assessee. His action in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,50,000 made by the AO and also deleting interest of Rs. 11,111 on account of interest credited in the said account, does not call for any interference. The same is confirmed and this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 313 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... sessee as regards the foreign exchange amounting to Rs. 37,181 found during the course of search has not been supported by any evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the said foreign exchange was held by the assessee on behalf of any company or companies and since the amount withdrawn by the said companies for purchase of foreign exchange for the purpose of assessee rsquo s foreign tour was entirely claimed as expenditure in their books of account, we are of the view that the AO was fully justified in treating the foreign exchange found in the possession of the assessee as unexplained and adding the same to the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO on this count. The same is, therefore, upheld and ground No. 2 of the assessee rsquo s appeal is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 308 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... present is not notional interest. Since, if at all the CIT(A) did not agree with the first plea of the appellant-company, atleast proportionate interest disallowed by the AO should have been considered for deduction under the head income from other sources , as envisaged under s. 57(iii). It is clear that the investment made by the appellant was made with a view to earning dividends. From the foregoing discussions, it is clear that proportionate interest attributed to investment made by the appellant-company in M/s Virgo Polymers Ltd. should have been allowed as deduction under s. 57(iii) but since the issue is decided in favour of the assessee on the first plea and the action of the CIT(A) in confirming AO rsquo s disallowance of interest paid on the investment made by the appellant-company in the shares of M/s Virgo Polymers Ltd. is quashed, and in the result, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appellant-company rsquo s appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 306 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Charitable Or Religious Trust ... ... ... ... ..... assessee society was found engaged in running the educational institution on commercial line will not serve the purpose Mere charging of high fees is also no ground unless specific finding is recorded that assessee society was earning profit and no such finding is on record. 28. On the basis of the above, the inevitable conclusion is that assessee society is entitled to get registration under section 12AA of the Act as the CIT-I had not doubted on the objects and genuineness of the activities of the assessee society. Therefore, we direct the learned CIT-I to grant the registration. However, this order may not come in the way of the Assessing Officer who is free to examine the case of the assessee society for exemption under section 11/13 of the Act, for which purpose each year is to be considered as independent year and the Departmental Authorities can examine the claim of the assessee society. 29. The appeal is allowed accordingly and CIT-I is directed to grant Registration.
-
2003 (12) TMI 304 - ITAT JODHPUR
Penalty - For failure to comply with section 269SS and 269T ... ... ... ... ..... penalty under s. 271D of the Act. 7. So far as repayment is concerned, I am of the opinion that repayment to Smt. Sunder Devi being out of capital remaining with the assessee-firm could not be said to be repayment out of loan or deposits and, therefore, was not covered the provisions of s. 269T of the Act. So far as repayment to Smt. Pushpa Salecha is concerned, the same being made for meeting treatment due to emergency of the matter, no penalty can be imposed as has been held by the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal in various cases relied upon by the counsel for the assessee. So far as repayment to Gulabchand is concerned, I am again of the opinion that repayment of trust money could not be in contravention of the provisions of s. 269T of the Act. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that CIT(A) was quite justified in cancelling the penalty. Order of the CIT(A) is, therefore, confirmed. 9. In the result, the Revenue s appeals are dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 302 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... quantified in the absence of the determination of the tax, it goes without saying that no penalty can be imposed. 4.10 Recently, Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court in the case of Ramnath Goenka vs. CIT has held That penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is imposable only in cases where the tax has been levied and no penalty can be levied when the result of the computation made by the AO is at a loss. Admittedly, in the instant case also, the assessee filed its return of income declaring net loss at Rs. 6,35,350 and finally assessed income was at a loss of Rs. 94,491. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prithipal Singh and the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court in the case of Ramnath Goenka vs. CIT, we are of the view that in the case of the assessee, no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was leviable. Accordingly we delete the same. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
........
|
