Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 157 of 157 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 26,729 actually incurred and for which liability to pay has arisen in the accounting year can be disallowed as not an admissible deduction in computing the income from business? - Held that the actual expenditure incurred has to be allowed notwithstanding the method of accounting the assessee followed Thus this question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue Whether Tribunal was correct in negativing the claim for the investment allowance u/s 32A, in respect of computers installed in its data processing division? - Whether Tribunal having held that computers are not office appliances erred in law in not considering the data processing division as a separate industrial undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 32A?" These two questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
2002 (9) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no element of gift was involved when the assessee retired from the firm in which he was a partner?" - In view of our judgment in CGT v. P.K. Somarajan Pillai, the question specified above has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We answer the question accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no element of gift was involved when the assessee retired from the firm in which he was a partner?" - we are of the view that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that when a partner retires from a partnership firm there is no element of gift involved. In the above circumstances, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 16 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 in order to apply for registration, even a religious trust must be one created for charitable purposes - Held that petitioner-trust is not a charitable one and, therefore, it is not entitled to apply for registration under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 - whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in cancelling the registration on the ground that the trust is a private religious trust not entitled to exemption under the Act - Second contention of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner cannot cancel the registration erroneously granted other than for the reasons stated in sub-section (12) of section 16 is also unsustainable
-
2002 (9) TMI 15 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Special deduction - The only question involved herein is whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the respondent-assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the interest and dividend income of Rs. 2,50,664 derived out of investment in National Savings Certificates, Indira Vikas Patras, Kisan Vikas Patras, short-term fixed deposits in banks and shares of Maharashtra State Finance Corporation of India. - We hold that the view ultimately taken by the Tribunal, though not on a very sound reasoning, has to be upheld as correct. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 14 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether the amount of "kist" payable by the assessee to the State Government can be allowed as a deduction even when the said sum has not been paid by the assessee in view of the restriction imposed under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Question is answered in affirmative and in favour of assessee revenues appeal is dismissed
-
2002 (9) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Receipt of lease amount Business income OR Income from other sources - When no business activities have been carried out by the assessee pertaining to manufacturing and the assessee simply has given the mill on lease, which is not the business of the assessee, therefore, any amount received on account of lease, that cannot be treated as income from business. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer has rightly taxed that income or receipt under the head "Income from other sources" - Tribunal was not justified in holding that the income of the assessee is assessable under section 28
-
2002 (9) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Allowance of depreciation for the block period - Tribunal giving its finding for disallowance of depreciation in block assessment - Tribunal has arrived at findings of fact after appreciating the evidence on record, including material seized during the course of search and seizure proceedings, and on going through the aforesaid order of the Tribunal it is apparent that no substantial question of law, much less any question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.
-
2002 (9) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
"Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the deduction under section 80-I is to be granted on the gross total income and not on the income reduced by the amount allowed under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" Held that deduction under section 80-I is to be allowed on the gross total income and not the balance of the income after deducting the relief under section 80HH. Reveries appeal dismissed
-
2002 (9) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Provident fund contributions - "1. Whether, Tribunal was right in law in directing to allow deduction in respect of delayed payment of provident fund dues even accepting that the amounts could be disallowed on strict interpretation of section 43B? 2. Whether, Tribunal was right in law in allowing relief of Rs. 64,267 being delayed payment of provident fund dues, accepting an interpretation of the provision of section 43B, other than the strict interpretation, for the sake of equity though it is a settled principle that equity has no place in interpretation of taxing statute?" Held that Provident fund contributions must be made within the due date for those to qualify for deductions under the Income-tax Act. - Both the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the Department
-
2002 (9) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
"Whether, on a true and proper construction of the provisions of section 43B, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provident fund payments actually made during the previous year but beyond the due date would have to be disallowed under the said provisions?" - In our opinion, there is no open or debatable question in this matter justifying the admission of the appeal. The appeal petition is accordingly rejected. The order and direction of the Tribunal in regard to the due date having to be found out by the Assessing Officer is consequentially confirmed by us as good in law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 8 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
This is a petition u/s 256(2), seeking a mandamus to the ITAT, to draw up a statement of the case and refer to this court the question of law - The additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted by the CIT (Appeals), and the ITAT, on accepting the explanation furnished by the assessee Tribunal hold that In the absence of a definite finding that the case of the assessee comes within the ken of the first proviso to section 145(1), it is not possible for the Assessing Officer to reject the book results and make addition to the gross profit. Held that Tribunal was right in rejecting the reference application filed by the Department Petition dismissed
-
2002 (9) TMI 7 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Purview of fee for technical services Demurrage charges - Explanation 2 appended to section 9 - It has not been disputed that the lump sum payment made to the company was a part of the fee for technical services rendered to the petitioner - Whether only because the said company used the word expression "demurrage" instead and in place of "fee for technical services" despite the relevant fact that the said company has been paid in terms of the said contract the benefit of section 10(6A) could denied to the assessee Respondents have committed a jurisdictional error in so far as it failed to take into consideration the nature of the transaction as contended by the assessee - matter is remitted back to the competent authority for consideration of the matter afresh
-
2002 (9) TMI 6 - DELHI HIGH COURT
High court - power of procedural review - While exercising its power, in our opinion, the High Court still acts as a constitutional authority and thus can exercise its jurisdiction in a manner as it may think fit and proper. The High Court is not a creature of any statute. It is now a well-settled principle of law that a power of substantive review is required to be conferred by the statute. No such power is required to be expressly conferred upon a court in relation to exercise of its power of procedural review. Such a power inheres in every court, more so in the High Court. - we are of the opinion that it is a fit case wherein this court should, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, recall the judgment dated October 15, 2001 - although this court, has answered the reference ex parte, it can recall the same.
-
2002 (9) TMI 5 - SC ORDER
Special Deduction - export- only reason for declining the relief to the assessee was the failure of compliance of the second proviso to section 80HHC - In view of the compliance of the said proviso, the order under challenge is set aside and the assessee is held entitled to deduction under section 80HHC
-
2002 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Applicability of section 41(1) - excise duty refunded by the Department was brought to tax by invoking section 41(1) - Tribunal was not right in holding that the refunded amount was not assessable under section 41(1) - High Court rightly observed that on the facts of that case, the question of cessation or remission of liability did not arise for consideration at all - no merit in the appeal - appeal is dismissed
-
2002 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Offences and Prosecution - view taken by the High Court is not consistent - section 6 of the General Clauses Act as saving the right to initiate proceedings for liabilities incurred during the currency of the Act, will not apply to omission of a provision in an Act - In the Income-tax Act, section 276DD stood omitted from the Act but not repealed and hence, a prosecution could not have been launched by invoking section 6 of the General Clauses Act after its omission
....
|