|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 157 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 80 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Expenditure On Acquiring Know-How - "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 35AB?" - Section 35AB is designed to provide relief to the assessee who paid a lumpsum consideration for acquisition of know-how. The time with reference to which the assessee's entitlement is to be judged is the previous year in which the payment was made and not the subsequent year in which the assessee's project was either abandoned or the know-how became useless by reason of the non-availability of other inputs required to make the project success. The return of the know-how in the subsequent year would not affect the factum of payment having been made in the relevant previous year for the purpose of acquisition of the know-how. - The Tribunal, therefore, was right in the view it took
-
2002 (9) TMI 79 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"Whether the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that the advance (rental) received by the assessee from the company in which he is a shareholder cannot be termed as a deemed dividend for the purpose of section 2(22)(e)?" - It is clear that the company had agreed to pay an advance of Rs. 10 lakhs when it had taken the first floor on lease for the purpose of meeting the cost of construction of the other three floors and that the lease deed provided explicitly that the advance so paid was to be adjusted against the rent payable for the other three floors. The amount of rent payable for those floors was also set out in the further lease. The advance therefore was required to be set off against the rents payable in future years and thus adjusted. The amount of Rs. 10 lakhs paid was clearly as advance, though it was an advance which was to be set off against the rents payable in future. - The question referred to us is therefore required to be and is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee
-
2002 (9) TMI 78 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"Whether, there was jurisdiction to assess the company in liquidation for wealth-tax for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 unless and until the assessing authority established from the books that the assets exceed the liabilities in value?" - The fact that the Wealth-tax Act does not contain a provision similar to section 178 of the Income-tax Act would not make any difference to the taxability of the net wealth of a closely held private company which has been subjected to a winding up order. - The Assessing Officer therefore was competent to make the assessment of the net wealth of a closely held private company, the assessee herein, even though that company had been subjected to a winding up order made by the company court. - The Assessing Officer having ascertained all the liabilities set out in the statement filed along with the return, there was no further need for the Assessing Officer to verify the books of account of the company. - The question referred to us is therefore answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of stock-in-trade leased out by the assessee with Dharangdhara Chemical Works Ltd. and leased out dated November 26, 1979, should be treated as part of the capital employed for the purpose of computing relief under section 80J of the Act?" - When the assessee receives rent by leasing out the manufacturing facility, it cannot also be said that the income is derived from the industrial undertaking. The value of the leased assets, therefore, had been rightly excluded by the Commissioner. The Tribunal was in error in reversing that decision of the Commissioner. The question referred is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 76 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Royalty Income - Publication Of Book - "1. Whether, the Tribunal was correct on the facts and in law in its interpretation of the declarations of the assessee's karta dated January 3, 1967, and December 22, 1970? - 2. Whether, the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was justified in disallowing the expenditure claimed by the assessee in respect of the publication of the revised edition of the book Design and Construction of Concrete Shell Roofs?" - "Whether the Tribunal was justified on the facts and in law in disallowing the expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of the foreign trip of the karta during the accounting year?"
-
2002 (9) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest income derived by the assessee from funds in connection with letter of credit is income derived from the profits of the business of the industrial undertaking so as to be entitled to get the benefit of section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961?". - In this case the interest received by the assessee was on deposits made by it in the banks. It is that deposit which is the source of income. The mere fact that the deposit made was for the purpose of obtaining letters of credit which letters of credit were in turn used for the purpose of the business of the industrial undertaking does not establish a direct nexus between the interest and the industrial undertaking. - The Tribunal, therefore, was in error in holding that there was direct nexus between the two. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 74 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest On Bank Deposits - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest income should not be excluded for the purpose of calculating the deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - The question referred to us is, therefore, answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 73 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Notices under section 158BC - Search And Seizure - Block Assessment - The grievance of the petitioner in the original petition is that the second respondent-Assessing Officer is trying to by-pass the provisions of law by ignoring Chapter XIV-B and making hasty steps to complete the assessment under section 143(3) or 144 which is not authorised by law and hence there is no statutory remedy to keep the second respondent within the limits of his powers. - A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in N.R. Paper and Board Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, had an occasion to consider the matter in details and held as follows: "that the notices issued under section 143(2) were in respect of the regular assessment and the Assessing Officer was within his jurisdiction to proceed with the same as per section 143(3) and make a regular assessment of the total income/loss of the previous year for the assessment year 1995-96 notwithstanding the fact that the said previous year was included in the block period for the purpose of assessment of the undisclosed income and that such assessment was already done and was the subject-matter of challenge before the Tribunal". We agree with the reasons given in the above cases and hold that there is no bar for continuing the regular assessment including the block period.
-
2002 (9) TMI 72 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, direction or order of this court quashing and setting aside the orders dated February 9, 1999, passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot, rejecting the petitioner's declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1991-92 and the petitioner has also prayed for a writ to direct the respondent to accept the petitioner's declarations under the said Scheme and to pass necessary orders under the said Scheme as required by law. - We accordingly hold that the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-designated authority to accept the petitioner's declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme which declarations were in respect of the "tax arrears", under the Income-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act determined prior to March 31, 1998, and in respect of which the petitioner's revision applications were pending as on the date of the declarations made before January 31, 1999, which was the extended time limit for making declarations under section 88 of the aforesaid Act.
-
2002 (9) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Explanation (ii) to the second proviso to section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that lease rent paid for guest house cannot be disallowed under section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" Our answer to the question, therefore, is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 70 - DELHI HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the deduction of only such amounts in respect of commission payable to Miss Nellie Melson during the relevant year, as were allowed to be remitted by the Reserve Bank of India in the relevant year?" - since the liability of the assessee to pay commission to the lady accrued under the agreement dated May 5, 1970, and the assessee was maintaining its accounts on the mercantile system of accounting, it was entitled to deduct such liability which had accrued during the period for which profits and gains were being computed and, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in law in restricting the deduction in respect of the commission to the amount actually remitted during the relevant year. - we answer the question referred in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 69 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Criminal Proceedings - exemption from personal appearance - application was supported by the affidavits of counsel for the petitioner wherein it was averred that Mr. K.R. Manjani, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, could not reach the court in time as he was busy in the High Court but his junior, Mr. N.P. Mishra, advocate, appeared in the court. Yet learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the application and declined to grant exemption from personal appearance. Hence, this petition - the impugned order is set aside. The petitioners are exempted from personal attendance unless the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers their presence to be necessary for any particular date.
-
2002 (9) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Non-resident - Shipping Business - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that demurrage charges received by the assessee are not includible in the assessee's total income and accordingly in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee?" Section 44B which is a special provision for computing profits and gains of shipping business in the case of non-residents, under the Explanation that was added by the Finance Act, 1997, expressly provides that demurrage charges or handling charges or any other amount of similar nature shall be regarded as the part of the amount paid or payable to the person engaged in the business of operation of ships on account of the carriage of passengers, livestock, mail or goods shipped at any port in India. In this case, as the amount of demurrage was admittedly received in India, the amended provision is clearly applicable. The question is, therefore, answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 67 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in directing that the assessee is entitled to depreciation in respect of the ten motor cars purchased on March 30, 1989, and March 31, 1989, even though the assessee had not proved the fact that the assets were used for the purpose of business during the relevant accounting year?" The question referred to us is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that depreciation on guest house should not be disallowed under section 37(4) of the Act? - 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in-law in holding that the incentives given by the Government in the form of higher free sale quota of sugar towards excise duty and purchase tax should be treated as capital receipt and hence no tax was exigible thereon?" - Our answer to the second question, therefore, in so far as the incentive given by the Central Government in the form of higher free sale quota of sugar and the excise duty are concerned is in favour of the assessee. In so far as the subsidy linked to the purchase tax extended by the State Government is concerned the answer is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - The first question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 65 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there is no justification to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax?" - The order of assessment in the record does not at all show any application of mind by the Assessing Officer to this receipt of Rs. 4.87 crores from the insurer. This amount is not even referred to in the order of assessment. The reference is only to an adjustment statement. That adjustment statement is not annexed to the assessment order. It is a statement filed by the assessee which has been implicitly accepted by the Assessing Officer. As to whether this receipt should be treated as taxable income in the hands of the assessee or excluded altogether from the computation on the ground that it is a capital receipt which did not have the character of a capital gain, is not anywhere discussed. Admittedly, the assessee had treated this amount as income in its profit and loss account and on its own showing it has used a part of this amount for payment of dividends. It was, therefore, necessary for the Assessing Officer to have examined in depth this claim of the assessee and his failure to do so is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the Revenue. The Commissioner was therefore right in exercising his power of revision under section 263 and directing the Assessing Officer to examine this aspect thoroughly and in accordance with law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of motor cars is not includible in the net wealth as they have been held as stock-in-trade by the assessee? - The words used in section 40(3) of the Finance Act, 1983, as they stood in this assessment year, do not permit the exclusion of stock-in-trade from the list of assets to be valued for the purpose of wealth-tax. Though the assessee is a dealer in motor cars and held some of the cars as stock-in-trade, in view of the specific provision for valuing motor cars as part of the taxable wealth, the valuation of those cars for the purpose of levying tax was rightly done by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal was in error in holding that the cars could not have been assessed at all. - The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 63 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Trustee - Representative Assessee - "1. Whether, Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment of the assessee's case was misconceived and setting it aside with a direction to the Income-tax Officer to frame fresh assessment in accordance with law? - 2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the share of the beneficiaries are clearly known and determinate is reasonable, supported by valid material and sustainable in law? - 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the lottery prize money and 2/3rds of the income did not accrue to the trust/beneficiaries and could not be considered for assessment is reasonable, supported by valid materials and sustainable in law? - 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that it is not possible to make an assessment in the status of association of persons/body of individuals is reasonable, supported by valid materials and sustainable in law?" - The questions referred to us are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue with the clarification with regard to question No. 3 that the accrual was to the trust though not to the beneficiary in that year.
-
2002 (9) TMI 62 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the order of the Assessing Officer in regard to rectification of status of the assessee within the meaning of the provisions of section 154 of the Act?" - In this case, the power to rectify under section 154 of the Act has been properly done. It has never been the contention of the assessee that it had not sought for renewal or what had been stated by its chartered accountant in the letter, which accompanied the return, was itself erroneous or incorrect. The firm was duly registered. It had sought renewal and so was required to be treated as a registered firm while making the assessment. - The question referred is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 61 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"Whether, Tribunal, having held that the commission received by the assesses from Kunal Engineering Company Limited apart from his regular salary income would form part of his salary income, was right in holding that only the net commission claimed by the assessee, after deduction of various expenses, such as canvassing, salary, travelling, telephone, postage, etc., expenses and depreciation on car should be assessed to tax as the assessee's income from salary?" - The commission paid to the assessee here was with reference to the volume of sales. The assessee was employed as a regional sales manager and the commission paid was obviously to enthuse the employee to effect a higher volume of sale. The commission so paid in addition to what the employer had fixed as a salary would also form part of salary. The question of allowing any deduction therefrom on the ground that the assessee had incurred expenses to earn that commission therefore does not arise. - The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
|
