|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 489 Records
-
2006 (10) TMI 116 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 148 of the Act. The second one relates to the addition of a sum of Rs. 2,43,080 as income from other sources. The third one relates to the consequential charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The Tribunal has considered the first issue alone holding that reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Act, is unsustainable and is not valid in law. In view of the same, the Tribunal did not consider the other two issues. The remaining two issues relate to the merits of the case. As we stated earlier that reopening is valid in law, the Tribunal has to consider the case on the merits, i.e., the other two issues stated above. Hence, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to take up the other two issues and decide the same after giving opportunity to both the parties to raise all the contention and pass orders on the merits, in accordance with law, as soon as possible. With the above observation, the tax case is disposed of. No costs.
-
2006 (10) TMI 115 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this review application would submit that the sentence starting with the word the and ending with the words relevant assessment year in paragraph No. 6 of our order dated October 9, 2006 (to be precise, the entire third sentence) is offending the assessee in the subsequent proceedings, since the Department understands that sentence to mean that the assessee had conceded that fact. Therefore, learned senior counsel would submit that this court may clarify that the judgment of this court is not based on the statement referred to earlier. Admit. Heard Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel appearing taking notice for the Revenue. After hearing learned counsel on either side, we find that our judgment in the main case is based on our independent assessment of the materials on record. We make it clear that our decision is not based on any alleged concession made as reflected in the third sentence of paragraph No.6 of our order. The review application stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2006 (10) TMI 114 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... view of these findings that the assessee has succeeded to substantiate the explanation furnished by him, at any rate the explanation submitted by the assessee cannot be said to be not bona fide. In that view of the matter the Tribunal was justified in not sustaining the penalty merely by raising presumption under Explanation 1 and Explanation 5. We are of the opinion that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the findings that the assessee s explanation about the surrendered income during the proceedings under section 132(5) having wrongly been included in the return submitted by the firm of which the assessee individual was a partner was substantiated are findings of fact based on relevant material, the same cannot be said to be perverse. Hence levy of penalty has rightly been not sustained. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference. ccordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2006 (10) TMI 113 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 80HHC of the Act. We deem it proper to remand the matter to the Tribunal. In the result, this appeal is partly accepted. The first question of law is partly answered in favour of the Revenue, in so far as the interest income is concerned. In so far as job tailoring receipts and nomination profit are concerned, the questions of law are not answered. Similarly, the second question of law is also not answered on the facts of this case. As mentioned earlier, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for redecision. Both parties are to appear before the Tribunal, without waiting for any notice on November 15, 2006. The Tribunal is to consider the case afresh in the light of the Commissioner s order and in the light of section 80HHC of the Act with regard to benefit available or not in the case on hand, without in any way being influenced by its earlier order or this order. The Tribunal is to complete the proceedings within five months thereafter. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
2006 (10) TMI 112 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng steps of compulsory acquisition of the property for the alleged undervaluation. This being the condition precedent, the authority must disclose to the party concerned, as to how the said transaction which was being undertaken by the party suffered from undervaluation and that the same is on the basis of that particular comparable instance. It is not permissible for the authority at the time of hearing to decide that the transaction involves undervaluation on the basis of an instance which was not cited in the show-cause notice. That denies an adequate opportunity to the party concerned to defend its position against the compulsory acquisition on the basis of undervaluation. For the reasons stated above, in our view the impugned order is not tenable. Accordingly, we make the rule absolute and set aside the order which has been passed by respondent No.2 dated January 27, 1994. In the facts of the present case, we do not award any costs. The writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2006 (10) TMI 111 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r is to waive the amount of interest. Even this court in its judgment and order dated April 19, 1999, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner had negatived the similar plea advanced by the petitioner s counsel, which order has become final and binding between the parties. Thus, the Commissioner can either reduce or waive the interest depending upon the circumstances. So far as the merits are concerned, we find that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs. 4,33,071 as interest on delayed refund. The liability of the petitioner towards interest on delay in deposit of taxes due is very much there. If the Commissioner of Income-tax has taken this into consideration regarding the sum of Rs. 4,33,071, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has acted on irrelevant or extraneous consideration. The order dated August 31, 2000, passed by the Commissioner, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 110 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he return having not been filed by the due date cannot be nullified by a return filed under section 139(4) of the Act. Even otherwise, section 158BB(1)(d) of the Act clearly provides that even where the date for filing the return has not expired, transactions recorded on the basis of entries relating to income in the books of account have to be taken into account. In the present case, no advance tax or self-assessment tax had been paid at the relevant time. In such a situation, the return filed under section 139(4) of the Act could not be taken into account. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that where no advance tax or self-assessment tax is paid, the return filed under section 139(4) cannot be treated as a return filed before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, while affirming the findings of the Tribunal on this issue, we do not find any substantial question of law arises. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 109 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f reassessment within permissible limitation to frame reassessment but beyond the period specified under section 143(2). The objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this period has been arbitrarily selected, which violates article 14. Having regard to the legislative history of the relevant provisions noticed above, this contention has no merit. The situation sought to be remedied by the Legislature relates to the period during which the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act have been interpreted as controlling limitation specified for assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 153(2) of the Act, which, according to the amendment, was not intended. The classification has the object of saving assessment, reassessment or recomputation in accordance with the limitation already specified. The tests for compliance of article 14 are fully met by the legislation in question. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.
-
2006 (10) TMI 108 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... questioned and those orders have become final, those questions cannot be reopened on the basis of a miscellaneous case filed under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code which does not at all apply to the exercise of reference jurisdiction by the High Court. That apart, from the remand report it is clear that none of the witnesses are available for cross-examination. As such no purpose will be served by seeking to reopen the proceedings on the basis of these misconceived miscellaneous cases and the whole thing has become academic. In fact the High Court in its judgment referred to above reported in CIT v. Biju Patnaik 1991 190 ITR 396 (Orissa) has come to a conclusion that the entire thing will be academic if the witnesses cannot be examined. These conclusions were reached by the High Court in the year 1990. After 16 years, the position obviously has not improved. For the reasons aforesaid, the miscellaneous cases are dismissed as totally misconceived and not maintainable.
-
2006 (10) TMI 107 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ercise of our powers under article 226 of the Constitution, it is not possible for us to analyse the correctness or otherwise of the reasons given by the statutory authorities for ordering a special audit nor is it possible to substitute our opinion for that of the statutory authorities. All that we are required to consider is whether the decision making process is vitiated in any manner or suffers from non-application of mind. From the facts that we have mentioned above, it appears that the decision taken to order a special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act is unexceptionable, and given the limited scope of our jurisdiction, we cannot interfere in the order passed. While dismissing both the writ petitions, we make it clear that the time spent in litigation in this court will not be included for the purposes of the assessment proceedings nor will it be included for completion of the special audit. The respondents are entitled to costs of Rs. 5,000 for each writ petition.
-
2006 (10) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) - furnished inaccurate particulars by concealing income - trading of silk yarn - unexplained capital and undisclosed profit - HELD THAT:- We find that after the insertion of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, if the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the additions is either found to be false and remained unsubstantiated, the additions so made are deemed to be the concealed income, and therefore, the penalty provisions are attracted. The decision relied upon by the Tribunal relates to the assessment years prior to April 1, 1976, when the present Explanation was not in the statute book, and, therefore, they are not applicable in the present case. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself in cancelling the penalty.
We, accordingly, answer the question referred at the instance of the Revenue in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2006 (10) TMI 105 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... directly. To such direct disbursements, the provisions of sub-section (9) of section 40A are not attracted. Therefore, there is merit in the assessee s contention that a closer examination of the applicability of sub-section (9) of section 40A to the facts in this case would show that these provisions do not apply to the scheme under consideration. From a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the contribution towards the marriage of the employee s daughter, which was not to be held during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question could not have been allowed. Further, the liability existing which the applicant claimed, was also not allowable, is based on correct appreciation of the legal provisions. We, accordingly, answer the second question of law referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2006 (10) TMI 104 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Petitioner is a local Authority – pendency of appeal – tax arrears - It has been granted a registration u/s 12A of IT Act, 1961. It is the case of the petitioner that it is eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 - Now, what has happened is that clause (20A) has been deleted from section 10. This clause (20A) deals with incomes which do not form part of total income and based thereon, now a demand has been raised for the claimed arrears of tax – petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. one crore towards these arrears which the petitioner has deposited. - Now, because the appeal is getting protracted, the Assistant Director of Income-tax has asked petitioner to pay 25 per cent. of the outstanding demand within a month - held that revenue will not insist on payment of the tax arrears during the pendency and disposal of the appeal which is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - recovery will not be insisted upon during the pendency of the appeal
-
2006 (10) TMI 103 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Applicant, a non-resident company is proposing to set up a liaison office in India to purchase of goods for the purpose of export - Looking to the nature of the proposed activities to be carried on by and the nature of the powers of the liaison office which is proposed to be set up in India by the applicant, a non-resident company, it cannot be held to have earned any income taxable in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
2006 (10) TMI 102 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
In this application, the Revenue has prayed to stay the operation of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and to pass such order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of natural justice Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 – held that Rule 41 relates to the orders of the Tribunal and not to those of authorities below - no prima facie case has been made out in Revenue’s favour - application filed by the Revenue merits no consideration
-
2006 (10) TMI 101 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
This is the second round of litigation relating to interest payable on the refund - refund application filed on 10-9-97 - order of the Comm. (A) sanctioning refund is dated 22-12-03 - earlier orders of the Asst. Comm. not sanctioning the refund claim don’t exist – so Comm. (A) order takes the place of order sanctioning refund & it is naturally with reference to the original application of the claimant – interest from the expiry of 3 months from date of receipt of refund application is payable
-
2006 (10) TMI 100 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
During search custom authorities seized & confiscated the gold & ornaments – but same were released when they failed to prove their ownership to the ornaments – search on basis of presumption that gold belongs to assessee – sec. 69A couldn’t be invoked merely on basis that a person was found in possession of any valuable article if ownership isn’t established – explanation of assessee regarding receipt of gold is satisfactory– value of gold & ornaments couldn’t be taxed in the hands of assessee
-
2006 (10) TMI 99 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Book profits - CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee holding that depreciation provided under the Companies Act was the minimum but there was no bar to higher depreciation being claimed by the assessee under IT Act and, thus, for purposes of Section 115-J of the Act, depreciation actually debited could be allowed - Tribunal upheld the said view - In view of judgment of SC, We, accordingly, answer the question against the revenue and in favour of the assessee – higher depreciation permissible
-
2006 (10) TMI 98 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Incentive bonus earned by the assessee, a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India – keeping in view the terms, conditions, rules and regulations of the service, impugned “incentive bonus” is assessable as “salary” as defined under section 17 of the Act, and is not professional income - therefore, the assessee is entitled to standard deduction under section 16 of the Act - the reference is answered accordingly
-
2006 (10) TMI 97 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Genuineness of the credit was doubted AO - considering the explanations furnished by assessee, AO vide its order of assessment held cash credits, to be not genuine and accordingly made additions - Merely because in some case the amount was also shown to have been returned does not prove that the transaction in question was genuine or bonafide - No explanation furnished as to why impugned persons have advanced amount to assessee without any interest – addition were justified
............
|
