Home Case Index All Cases Income TaxIncome Tax Section Wise 2006 2006 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Income Tax - Case Laws

Showing 61 to 80 of 1912 Records

• 2006 (12) TMI 163 - ITAT AGRA
  

  Block Assessment in search case

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... xtent, income not chargeable to tax, tax should not be charged on that part of income. The SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court, 266 ITR (St.) 104-105 (SC). 13. From above discussion, it is clear that income above chargeable limit in respect of which no tax has been paid by way of advance tax or TDS, will be liable to tax as undisclosed income for the block period under section 158BB. The Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT (Appeals) have not carried out this exercise. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer who will determine the income for assessment year 2000-01 as per law and the total income over and above the exemption limit as also covered by tax paid, determined after considering the rebate/deduction applicable to the assessee, if any, will be treated as undisclosed income for the block period. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly. 14. In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 138 - SC ORDER
  

  Capital Or Revenue Expenditure - whether the proportionate lease rent paid by the mining lessee for acquiring leasehold right for extracting minerals from mineral bearing land would be a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure - Held that:- distinction lies between a case where royalty or rent is being paid on the one hand and where the entire amount of lease is paid either at a time or in instalments. Whereas in the former case it would be a revenue expenditure in the latter it would be a capital expenditure. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this is not a case where the High Court could have interfered with the order of the Tribunal - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 137 - SC ORDER
  

  Special Audit - Assessee contends that before any direction can be issued under section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") for special audit of the accounts of the assessee, there has to be a pre-decisional hearing and an opportunity has to be granted to the assessee for the purpose - Held that:- A close reading of the decision shows that the observations in this regard appear to have been made in the context of the assessments in terms of section 158BC (block assessment) of the Act. Such assessments are relatable to a case when raid has been conducted at the premises of an assessee. Had that been so, limited to the facts involved in that case, we would have negatived the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. But, certain observations of general nature have been made. The effect of these observations appear to be that in every case where the Assessing Officer issues a direction in terms of section 142(2A) of the Act, the assessee has to be heard before such order is passed. This does not appear to us to be the correct position of law - Matter referred to larger bench.

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 136 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the driver‘s salary was not to be included while working out the disallowance u/s 37(3A) - expression “running and maintenance of motor cars” would clearly include the expenditure on hiring a drive for running, the said motor car – hence, driver‘s salary must be included while working out the disallowance u/s 37(3A) - assessee claimed investment allowance in respect of its refinery unit for new machinery - Assessing Officer is not justified in disallowing the claim on the ground that the refinery was not a manufacturing process/industrial undertaking

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 135 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Expenditure on purchase of motors and certain other items of machinery - AO rejected the claim for treating the said amount as revenue expenditure on the ground that the items purchased were not spare parts but independent items - Plea of the assessee that most of the items purchased were electric motors for replacement of existing machinery, was upheld. The Tribunal affirmed the said order and held that occasional replacements were necessary having regard to the machinery installed - Tribunal was right in law in allowing expenditure in the machinery repairs account as revenue expenditure

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 134 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  For non-compliance with the provisions of section 249(4)(a) the appeal was not entertained by CIT (A). The appellant instead of challenging the order dismissing the appeal or availing of any other remedy against such an order, filed appeal once again pointing out that tax having been subsequently adjusted - Though fresh appeal filed was not maintainable, filing of appeal again was merely an irregularity and the said appeal could be treated as an application for revival of appeal - order of the Tribunal & CIT (A) is set aside - CIT (Appeals) is directed to decide the appeals on the merits

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 133 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee claimed deduction towards commission and Export Market Development allowance. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same under section 37(3A) – Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenses on account of commission and Export Market Development Allowance are not to be taken into account for the purpose of dis-allowance under sections 37(3A) - question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 132 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Books of account maintained by the assessee did not correctly reflect the transactions of business and were inconsistent with the note book and diary seized - Having regard to the transactions found out side the books of account, the assessment was made on the basis of estimate - In such a situation some amount of guess work could not be ruled out – therefore, ITAT was justified in confirming/upholding the additions made by CIT (A)

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 131 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee is a dealer in country liquor & holds L-13 licence, as wholesale dealer - demand raised for failure to collect tax as a whole-seller u/s 206C(6) - plea of assessee is that the tax had to be collected by the distillery from whom the assessee had made purchases and the assessee not being first seller, was not liable to deduct tax - ITAT was right in holding that the assessee being L-13 licensee is governed by proviso to section 44AC and, therefore, not liable to collect tax at source

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 130 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Claim for deduction us/ 80-O disallowed by AO by giving intimation u/s 143(1)(a) - since the issue posed before the Assessing Officer whether the deduction u/s 80-O is on the net income or on the gross income was not debatable, he rightly disallowed the claim of assessee u/s 80-O while issuing the intimation u/s 143 (1)(a) – assessee’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 129 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Allegation that assessee inflated purchase price of some goods – excessive payment - tribunal deleted the additions made by AO by upholding the order of CIT - finding of ITAT & CIT is not based on any judicious reasons - matter remitted to AO, with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to discharge his burden and satisfy the Revenue that the expenditure incurred by it in connection with purchase of blades and gear boxes from its sister concern is not excessive or unreasonable

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 128 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Block assessment – demand sought to be recovered by the auction sale of property – petitioner, trust claiming the owner of the said property, made claim u/r 11– revenue has objection that petitioner had no locus standi – revenue plea is acceptable – since property is not in name of petitioner, petitioner cannot be termed as an aggrieved person and therefore the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Block assessment – search - Sale of immovable property - admission made voluntarily by assessee relating to undisclosed income – retraction of statement by assessee even after the service of summons during the course of recording statement would itself negate the admission – moreover Revenue not established that there is actually on-money passed on to the seller – not proved that there is understatement of sale consideration in the document – additions rightly deleted by CIT & ITAT

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 126 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty imposed u/s 271D for giving loan in cash exceeding the prescribed limit – violation of section 269SS - transactions were found genuine – there was business exigency forcing the assessee to take cash loan – creditors were found genuine persons – there was no revenue loss to the exchequer – test of business exigency satisfied – for the above reasons, deletion of penalty by tribunal is justified

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 125 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Expenditure on tools and modification of machines are revenue in nature – expenses on gift articles to be distributed to dealers, generated goodwill so they are deductible – interest on borrowed capital which was used for making interest free advance to managing director are also deductible – loss could not be ignored while working out special deduction u/s 80HHC - held that ST and CST etc. should be excluded from total turnover while computation of incentives u/s 80HHC

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 124 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Loan in cash exceeding prescribed limit - AO found that the assessee had taken a cash loan violating the provisions of section 269SS and repaid the amount in cash violating section 269T - Tribunal was right in holding that penalty u/s 271D & 271E cannot be imposed for violation of section 269SS & 269T respectively, if there is no intention to evade tax and the transactions are genuine

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 123 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Claim of appellant-trust for registration u/s 12A denied on ground that object of trust is to establish a “dharamshala” only for the members of Dhakad Samaj which is not a backward class - Merely because the accommodation created is in a religious place, it cannot be said that providing dharamshala is for religious purposes - Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant-trust is not entitled to claim the registration u/s 12A, thereby not entering into claim for exemption u/s 11

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 122 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Export – interest received from customers on account of delay in payment, even if assessed as business income, will have to be reduced therefrom for the purpose of calculation of profits of business to calculate the relief admissible under section 80 HHC – revenue appeal is accepted

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 121 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... stitutes plant , the functional test must be applied. If it is found that the building or structure constitutes an apparatus or a tool of the taxpayer by means of which the business activities are carried on, it would amount to plant but where the structure plays no part in the carrying on of those activities but merely constitutes a place within which they are carried on, the building cannot be regarded as a plant. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal observed that the assessee, who is a medical practitioner, is running a nursing home. Hence, applying the ratio laid down by the apex court in CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao 2000 243 ITR 81, referred supra, we hold that the cost of construction of the nursing home of the assessee is entitled for depreciation on the ground that it is a plant. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the Tribunal and finding no substantial question of law, the appeals stand dismissed.

  ---

• 2006 (12) TMI 120 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... urts, but such power and jurisdiction could be exercised statutorily only within the time of four years, not beyond the period of four years. For all these reasons, when the section is plain and unambiguous, any other interpretation, if made, would lead to a situation where the authority would exceed its jurisdiction. We are therefore of the view that the Appellate Tribunal should have passed the order of rectification within four years from the date of the order sought to be rectified. In fine, without going into the merits of the case, we hold that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the order impugned and the consequential order dated June 12, 2003 are set aside as it is settled that when initiation of proceedings under a statute lacks jurisdiction, the final or consequential order is also liable to be struck down. The questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal stands allowed. No costs.

  ---

12345678........ 96