Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 84 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2006 (10) TMI 502 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ..... s have actually been made by the assessee, as claimed by it, and if the payment has been made, its claim should be allowed. 6. We have heard Sri Shamboo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 7. In view of the order of the Tribunal confining the jurisdiction of the assessing authority to enquiry only regarding the genuineness of the payments made by the assessee, it was not open to the assessing authority to embark upon any other enquiry and to reopen the matter which had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessing authority could not have gone into the question of disallowance of the incentive bonus under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. 8. We are of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal does not raise any substantial question of law which requires consideration. 9. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed in limine.
- 2006 (10) TMI 496 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... section 143(2) could no longer be invoked but the notice was required to be within the limitation prescribed under section 147 of the Act. 5. This aspect of the matter has not been gone into by the Tribunal as the appeal was accepted on the other issue. In the absence thereof, we do not express any opinion on this question. 6. For the above reasons, answer to the question raised is rendered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and it is held that bar contained in Proviso to section 143(2) of the Act could not be invoked to the reassessment under section 148 of the Act in view of amendment by Finance Act, 2006. We do not express any opinion on the question sought to be raised by the assessee in absence of any finding recorded by the Tribunal. As other issues raised in the appeal before the Tribunal have not been gone into, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
- 2006 (10) TMI 492 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ..... of a sufficient degree of durability appropriate to the context. 8. It was also held that the phrase "enduring benefit" is not thinking of advantages that are permanent. There is a difference between the lasting and the everlasting. 9. In the light of the above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that upgradation of computers by changing certain parts thereby enhancing the configuration of the computers for improving their efficiency but without making any structural alterations is not of an enduring nature. The expenditure incurred by the assessee has therefore to be treated as revenue expenditure. 10. Similar view has been taken by this Court in T. C. Nos. 1397 and 1398 of 2005, by judgment dated 20-1-2006 (CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd. (2006) 282 ITR 379 (Mad)). Accordingly, the second question is answered in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 11. In the result, the tax case appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
- 2006 (10) TMI 467 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... the same was incorporated in the main IT Act. 7. As regards the order of this Court in Roshan Singh Makker's case (supra), we find that provisions of Finance Act, 2000 were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal nor the same were brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the Revenue in that case and do not find mention in the order of the Tribunal which has been extracted in the order of this Court. This Court only interpreted the effect of proviso to s. 113 added w.e.f. 1st June, 2002, without taking into account the provisions of the Finance Act, 2000 which has been relied upon in the impugned order. The said order cannot, thus, be taken to be an authority for the proposition that irrespective of a provision in the Finance Act, levy of surcharge was not permissible on the ground that proviso to s. 113 of the Act was added only w.e.f. 1st June, 2002. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
- 2006 (10) TMI 466 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ..... Aggarwal, Advocate ORDER No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
- 2006 (10) TMI 465 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ..... in the present case the opportunity to cross examine Sri Mohd. Shamim Khan was afforded but the appellants did not avail. 13. So far as additions under section 69C of the Act are concerned, we find that in view of the specific finding recorded by the Assessing Authority, which has been upheld in appeal by the Tribunal that the alleged gifts were purchased by the appellants after paying 10 per cent commission, the additions have rightly been made under section 69C of the Act. The question Nos. 3, 7 and 8, therefore, cannot be said to be substantial questions of law. 14. So far as the question No. 9 is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has held that the levy of interest is consequential. In any event the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to disprove the levy of interest. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeals. Thus, all the appeals are dismissed in limine.
- 2006 (10) TMI 461 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... CIT, (2005) 277 ITR 341, wherein following the judgment of Delhi high Court in CIT v. KC Sahni (HUF), (2000) 246 ITR 299, it was held that prior to amendment in the year 1988, the benefit of Section 54 of the Act was not available to the assessee, which is HUF. Similar view has been expressed by various High Courts in Kanhyalal and Ramswaroop v. CIT, (1984) 149 ITR 157 (MP), Shrigopal Rameshwardas v. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, MP, (1979) 119 ITR 980 (MP), Smt.Rampyaribai Narayandas v. CIT, MP, Bhopal, (1984) 147 ITR 223 (MP), Anam Venkata Krishna Reddy v.CIT, (1988) 172 ITR 425 (AP), Ravindra Gunvantlal Shah v. CIT, (1994) 208 ITR 995 (Guj.) and Pravin Chand Mohin Kumar v. CIT, (1994) 208 ITR 11 (Raj.). Concurring with the view already expressed by this Court in Raghunath Dass Sethi's case (supra). None appears for the assessee. Following the above view, we answer the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly.
- 2006 (10) TMI 458 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ribunal was justified in law in holding that income of ₹ 8,27,39,992/- from procurement of wheat as an agent of the Government is not exempt u/s 10(29) of the Income-tax Act.” We find that identical question has been gone into by this Court in our judgment rendered on 06.09.2006 in Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax I.T.R. No.120 of 1998. Accordingly, the question referred is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
- 2006 (10) TMI 457 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... confirmed one item, addition was limited to balance ₹ 1 lakh, which was the entry disowned by the creditor. Appellant’s case is that creditor is deliberately disowning the transaction. We are unable to accept this contention because once creditor disowns the transaction, it is for the appellant to prove the same, which the appellant failed. In the circumstance, there is no scope for interference. Appeal is therefore dismissed.
- 2006 (10) TMI 454 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ..... entity of payee. 10. In the case on hand, we fail to see that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the exceptional and unavoidable circumstances warranting the payment by cash; the payments by way of crossed cheque or crossed bank draft was not practicable; such payments would have caused genuine difficulties to the payee; and there was necessity for expeditious settlement. Even though it is found that the assessee made cash payments for day-to-day affairs of associate concerns, the reason given by the CIT(A) for deleting 20 per cent disallowance that the payments were made to associate concerns and hence, they were allowable cannot be a justifiable reason as it is outside the scope of s. 40A(3) of the Act. We are satisfied that the deletion of disallowance of 20 per cent the total amount frustrates s. 40A(3) of the Act. In the result, we answer the questions of law referred to above in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal stands allowed. No costs.
- 2006 (10) TMI 449 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ..... mently contended before us on behalf of the Revenue that these decisions do not prohibit initiation of penalty proceedings and that for that purpose the declaration that the assessed is an "assessed-in-default" is relevant. However, this does not appear to have been raised before the Tribunal. It was for this purpose that we have extracted the grounds raised before the Tribunal. The specific question of whether penalty proceedings can nevertheless continue despite the payment of tax and interest thereon by the deductee was not separately and distinctly raised or contended before the Tribunal. We are, therefore, not called upon to consider this question in the present proceedings under Section 260A of the IT Act. 4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration since the question which has been raised before the authorities stands covered by the aforementioned decisions. 5. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
- 2006 (10) TMI 441 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowel & Co.Ltd. V/s. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 48 (SC)? C Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in accepting assessee's deliberate and unjustified claim of not paying interest to partners and ignoring their obligation to pay interest to the partners which was authorized as per the partnership deed and was due within the parameters of the provisions of section 40(b)(iv) of the I.T.Act, 1961 particularly in background of the fact that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.80IB of the I.T. Act?” The learned Counsel for the revenue fairly admits that similar issue was raised in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Industrial Workwear being Tax Appeal No. 1177 of 2005 and the said Appeal was not admitted. Following the view taken in above Tax Appeal No.1177 of 2005, no case is made out for admission of these Appeals. The Appeals stand dismissed.
- 2006 (10) TMI 439 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ..... kesh Ranjan Agrawal appearing for the respondent-assessee. 5. It is agreed between the learned counsel for the parties that both the questions have to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in view of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (No. 1) 2005 274 ITR 340 1, wherein this Court has held that interest on excess levy sugar price is an allowable deduction and in ITR No. 65 of 1996 - CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. decided on 28-4-2005, wherein this Court has held that the question of disallowance of interest does not arise in the case where the assessee-company had not charged interest on the advances given to its subsidiaries, namely, M/s. Dhampur Yeast Company and M/s. U.P. Straw Boards & Agro Products Ltd. 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid two decisions, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of assessee and against the revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
- 2006 (10) TMI 426 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ..... was not per se enough for making the addition. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A). It was held that the assessing officer having accepted gross profit rate and having not pointed out any suppressed sales or inflated purchases or any other discrepancy in the books of account, addition was not justified merely on the ground that there was variation in the stock statement furnished to the bank and the closing stock in the accounts books. 3. We have perused the impugned order and heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact. The counsel for the revenue could not point anything to show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse. 5. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Further, we find that ITA No.193 of 2005 (CIT v. Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills), raising a similar question of law, was dismissed by this Court on August 16,2005. 6. The appeal is dismissed.
- 2006 (10) TMI 383 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ithin one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, furnish to the claimants the certificate indicating the interest amounts computed for each year and with the break-up of the interest amounts payable to each claimant in each of those years as per the apportionment made in this order. Thereafter it will be open to the claimants to make applications/representations before the appropriate income-tax authority which shall decide the same within six months from the date of receipt thereof. 16. We are not passing any orders on the prayers for disbursement of the amounts as the learned advocate for the claimants seeks leave to file a separate application with all necessary facts in support of the prayer. Leave as prayed for is granted. Subject to the said liberty, Rule is made absolute. The application is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. The Registry shall circulate a copy of this order amongst all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the State.
- 2006 (10) TMI 145 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rejection of books of account – change in gross profit rate - assessee-appellant is doing business of trading in pan masala and other connected commodities. The assessee has furnished return of income showing ₹ 4,48,280 as taxable income along with the audit report. - the Assessing Officer noticed that there is fall in the gross profit rate in the business as a whole as compared to the gross profit rate shown by the assessee during the last assessment year 1991-92. The assessee has shown in the previous year gross profit rate of 4.63 per cent, by taking entire business as a whole, but this year he has shown the gross profit rate of 2.38 per cent. only. With this premise, he decided to reject the books of account and asked for explanation of the assessee about the fall in the gross profit rate - Held that - Mere deviation in the gros....... + More
- 2006 (10) TMI 144 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
“Block period” means the period of 10 years preceding the previous year in which the search was conducted. The “previous year” further includes the period in which the search was conducted up to the date of the commencement of search - in block assessment total undisclosed income relating to block period ending up to date of search to be charged to tax – however in absence of evidence, undisclosed income is to be taken as shown in profit and loss account rather than as declared in return – in respect of genuineness of a gift, amount credited as capital of firm and not having been received as gift, no enquiry conducted as to source of amount and how it had been credited – amount can be added as unexplained investment
- 2006 (10) TMI 143 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Dealer in vehicles – amount received under “post warranty service contract” - credit balance in the post-warranty service scheme - plea of the assessee that the amount had not been transferred to the P/L A/c, did not make a difference on principle. If no liability accrued during the year, the amount could not be kept in suspense account. The same has to be treated as income - Considering the terms of the contract with the purchasers of the vehicle, any amount remaining credited in the account for more than three years from the date of credit has to be treated as income for the year thereafter and any refund claimed by any purchaser thereafter will be a permissible deduction during that relevant year
- 2006 (10) TMI 142 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Cessation of liability - Amounts collected as sales tax and Central sales tax were later found to be in excess of the amounts payable - assessee transferred the said amounts to the suspense account but did not credit the same to the profit and loss account - hold that the amount collected towards sales tax which remained unpaid and unpayable to the Department, which was also not refunded to the customers, was liable to be treated as income in the hands of the assessee under section 41(1) of the Act. As and when the amount is refunded to the customers, the same may be claimed as deduction by the assessee
- 2006 (10) TMI 141 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Depreciation of firm determined after assessment of partner – Whether Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to set off depreciation allowed in the case of the firm by taking recourse to S. 155 - partner is entitled to set off his share of unabsorbed depreciation in A.Y. 1992-93 – for A.Y. 1993-94 to 1995-96, the assessee would not be entitled to claim any benefit for the reason that in the subsequent years, the firm ceased to exist. In case, the firm itself is not in existence and the unabsorbed depreciation is not carried forward in the hands of the firm, there was no question of apportionment thereof in the hands of the partners