|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 301 Records
-
2002 (6) TMI 21
Wealth Tax, Revision, Valuation Of Assets - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was not justified in exercising the power under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in so far as the assessment year 1976-77 in question is concerned? - our answer to the questions referred to us is in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (6) TMI 20
Interest, Advance Tax - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the net refund amount determined with Rs. 1,95,951? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of sections 208 to 219 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a payment of Rs. 12,00,000 made on March 14, 1979, should be treated as advance payment of tax?" - we confirm the order passed by the Tribunal and answer the reference against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2002 (6) TMI 19
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee in converting the godown taken on lease into office premises could be termed as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure?" - since the assets created by spending the said amounts did not belong to the assessee but the assessee got the business advantage of using modern business premises at a low rent, thus saving considerable revenue expenditure for a considerably long period, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the expenditure should be looked upon as revenue expenditure. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
-
2002 (6) TMI 18
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 1/2 share of the deceased in the Hindu undivided family estate inherited from her husband was includible in her hands as a property passing or deemed to pass on her death - our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (6) TMI 17
"(i) Whether, the expenditure on account of accident insurance and medical expenses in respect of the two managing directors of the company was includible for purposes of computing the disallowance under section 40A(5)?" - (ii) Whether, the receipt of Rs. 47,64,070 on account of cash compensatory support (CCS) was a revenue receipt and therefore exigible to tax? - (iii) Whether, the expenditure of Rs. 22,000 incurred by way of fees to an advocate was allowable as revenue expenditure?"
-
2002 (6) TMI 16
"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957? - (ii) Whether, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had exceeded his jurisdiction and his order cannot be sustained is correct in law?" - we are of the same view that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was justified in setting aside the assessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer and in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to recompute the correct net wealth and tax after considering the valuation made by the Departmental Valuer. - In view of the above, our answer to both the questions referred to us is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (6) TMI 15
"Whether the Tribunal's order is vitiated on account of utter non-application of mind?" - The Tribunal being the final fact-finding authority was expected to apply its mind to the contentions and issues and give a separate finding on each issue. It is true that the order of the Tribunal is a confirming order. But, that would not absolve the Tribunal from independently examining the issues and then discussing the same. We, therefore, set aside the order and direct the Tribunal to decide it afresh after giving opportunity to the assessee.
-
2002 (6) TMI 14
Reassessment- contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had disclosed all material particulars of his income, including his status in the return filed by him. As such there was no failure on his part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the relevant year. In this back drop, he further submits that there is no averment in the affidavit to assert that the escapement is by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make return or to disclose fully or truly, all material facts necessary for his assessment for the relevant assessment year. He, therefore, submits that in the absence of any averment in this behalf in the affidavit, this court should legitimately presume that no reasons are recorded at least for complying with the second condition precedent required for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, If the existence of these facts is challenged by the assessee before the court, it was obligatory on the part of the Income-tax Officer to satisfy the court even on the second mandatory requirement of the section. In our view the submission is well made out. No material is to be found in the affidavit complying with this second mandatory requirement of section 148 - impugned notice under section 148 are set aside
-
2002 (6) TMI 13
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in the total income of the assesses in the light of the amendment made to section 44AD from April 1, 1994, which is prospective and not retrospective in operation?" - We have already set out the question of law and the question does not bring out the controversy in question and we reframe the question as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in the total income of the assessee?" - We hold that the question raised is not a question of law but a pure question of fact. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 12
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant could not be considered to be an 'industrial company'? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the definition of 'industrial company' in section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978, did not cover the activities of the appellant for the purpose of determining the rate at which the appellant was liable to income-tax?" The first question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue and in view of that, it is felt not necessary to answer the second question.
-
2002 (6) TMI 11
"Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,272 on account of unpaid sales tax under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - The controversy pertains to the amount which was collected by the respondent-assessee as sales tax in the last quarter of the previous year but payable statutorily in the subsequent year. - we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (6) TMI 10
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer is barred by limitation?" - - we are of the opinion that the revised return filed by the assessee on March 22, 1976, was a valid return and the assessment based on that return is also valid, legal and in accordance with the provisions. In this view of the matter, the provisions contained in section 153(1)(c) was clearly attracted enabling the Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order within one year from the end of the month in which the revised return was filed. Since the assessment was made within this period, it cannot be said that the said assessment was either invalid or non est or barred by limitation. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the return filed on August 14, 1973, was actually a return under section 139(1) and that consequently the provisions of section 153(1)(c) are attracted and, therefore, the assessment completed on March 15, 1977, is not barred by limitation.
-
2002 (6) TMI 9
Petitioners are challenging income-tax recovery notice - garnishee proceedings - Since the petitioners have no direct grievance nor any claim of priority over the income-tax dues, I do not think that they have any right to question the recovery notice against the employer. On this ground alone, the original petition is liable to be dismissed. - The next question is the petitioners' claim of immunity under the proviso to section 226(2) of the Income-tax Act. It is obvious from the said sub-section that immunity is against attachment of part of salary in recovery proceedings initiated against an employer for recovery of tax due from an employee. - So long as this court has no jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to decree the salary arrears payable by the third respondent which is a company at Madras to the petitioners, this court is disabled to consider any priority for the petitioners' claim over the arrears of income-tax due from their employer to the Government. - the original petition is dismissed
-
2002 (6) TMI 8
The notice, issued under section 148, seeking to reopen the assessment in respect of the assessment year 1995-96 is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. - petitioner challenges the said notice on various grounds. The notice that has been issued is subject to a proviso to section 147 since issued four years after the end of the relevant assessment year and as such is incompetent and without jurisdiction. - In the result this writ petition succeeds and the proceeding cannot be proceeded with in respect of Rs. 1,78,15,909, the materials in respect of which were disclosed. But so far as the balance of Rs. 1,37,000 is concerned, the same can be proceeded with since there was failure to disclose materials on the part of the petitioner as is apparent from the records to assess the income in respect thereof. - The writ petition, therefore, succeeds in part
-
2002 (6) TMI 7
Waiver of penalty - interference with the orders passed under section 273A From a perusal of these orders it would appear that the ground taken by the assessee of the delay in filing of returns being attributable to the Central Bureau of Investigation having seized the account books, does not appear to be a tenable and convincing ground, so as to justify waiver of the penalty and interest. It is noted in the assessment order that the assessee was not found to be maintaining books of account. It was discovered in the survey carried out that the assessee was not maintaining books of account. Rather the delay in filing is stated to be on account of making the accounts at its own convenience. As regards the seizure of books of account by the Central Bureau of Investigation, it is urged that if the assessee was earnest, he could have obtained inspection of the seized books and records and taken details and filed returns. - Moreover, in view of the limited scope of interference with the orders passed under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, no ground is made out to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
-
2002 (6) TMI 6
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the interest charged by the Assistant Controller under section 70 of the Estate Duty Act on the demand of estate duty determined provisionally under section 57, is not sustainable in law ?" – We answer the question in the affirmative, and against the Revenue
-
2002 (6) TMI 5
TDS – non deduction - Assessee contended that there was no chargeable income at all which resulted to the non-resident and that there was no payment of any sum by the assessee to the non-resident and as such there was no liability to deduct tax at source u/s 195 - Revenue was of the view that the income from charter hire has accrued, arisen and also been received in India in terms of 85 per cent. of the catch of fish and, therefore, the assessee was obliged to deduct tax at source – Held that Tribunal is correct in law in holding that payment is made to the non-resident by the assessee in India - Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the receipt in the form of 85 per cent. of the catch of fish by the non-resident was in India since all the formalities are completed in India - Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source u/s 195 on the alleged payment made to the non-resident towards hire charges even though the alleged payment is not in cash - Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee was in default u/s 201, for the failure to deduct tax u/s 195
-
2002 (6) TMI 4
Notice issued by the authority under section 269UD - notice issued by the appropriate authority under section 269UD does not disclose all the material on the basis of which it could be said to have been issued, much less the details thereof and, therefore, the interest of the petitioners could be said to have been totally prejudiced - It is pointed out that notice was received on February 15, 1995, and the petitioners were expected to represent themselves with all the details on February 21, though the matter was no doubt shunted for one day only. Therefore, this cannot be said to be reasonable opportunity afforded to the petitioners to defend themselves.
-
2002 (6) TMI 3
Deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I – accounts - Whether, having regard to the provisions of sections 80HH(5) and 80-I(7), the Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding that the assessee's company ought to have submitted audited account in support of its claims for deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I in respect of its new industrial undertaking from its gross total income - Held that law does not require that a separate account to be maintained for claiming deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proviso to sub-section (1) shall not help the Revenue in the case as the petitioner-appellant herein is a company –question answered in favour of the petitioner/appellant.
-
2002 (6) TMI 2
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi disposed of an appeal regarding waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. The tribunal upheld the demand for service tax due to a retrospective amendment but set aside the penalty imposed, stating that a subsequent amendment with retrospective effect cannot bring penal consequences on the assessee. The appeal was allowed in part, granting relief to the appellant regarding the penalty.
....
|
9911796707
