Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1986 1986 (8) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 267 of 267 Records
-
1986 (8) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... n the proceedings below were reiterated before us. The Revenue did not dispute the method and manner of assessment of the insurance company. It was also not disputed that the premia paid in respect of the claims of the policyholders had been assessed to tax earlier. The said amount of Rs. 50,000 representing the time-barred claims did not reach the hands of the assessee as income. But, for the purposes of accounting, the same was adjusted by way of a contra entry. The method of accounting has also not been disputed by the Revenue. For the above reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. It is stated on behalf of the assessee that Ruby General Insurance Company has since merged with the National Insurance Company of India. Let the records be corrected accordingly. MONJULA BOSE J.-I agree.
-
1986 (8) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... cide on a ground of appeal relating to the charging of interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, which did not arise out of the order under section 154 passed by the Income-tax Officer ? In our view, the question has become academic inasmuch as the entire order of rectification has been cancelled by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was subsequently sustained by the Tribunal. Necessarily, the interest which was included in the total tax under the order of rectification cannot now stand. The grounds of appeal relating to the charging of interest was valid as the order under section 154 specifically provided for payment of such interest. In any event, the entire order having been cancelled, the matter has now become of academic interest. We agree with the order of the Tribunal rejecting the appeal of the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. MONJULA BOSE J. -I agree.
-
1986 (8) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... m and also other rates and taxes had to be paid for the whole of the year. Though the extended period of the licence was only for three months, the assessee could not carry on manufacturing business at all without these payments being made. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that even under clause 4 of the leave and licence agreement, the obligation of the assessee was to pay insurance premium, rates and taxes during the period of the leave and licence agreement. In the facts of this case, the assessee could not do otherwise than make the payments for the whole of the year. The payments had to be made out of necessity and in the course of carrying on of the business of the assessee. We do not see any reason to depart from the view taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SATISH CHANDRA C. J. - I agree.
-
1986 (8) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... ts plant and machinery, no question would have arisen of any loan being advanced. The modernisation took place at the behest of the assessee so that the assessee could have use of better plant and machinery. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and especially in view of the resolution passed by the board of directors of the assessee-company at the time of granting the loan to treat the loan as on capital account, in my judgment, the Tribunal was entitled to come to the conclusion that the loan that was given was on capital account and could not be allowed as deduction in computing the assessee s commercial profit. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SATISH CHANDRA C. J. -I agree. In view of retirement of Satish Chandra C. J., this judgment may be filed as the judgment of the Division Bench on the basis of the principle embodied in rule 3 of Chapter XVI of the original side rules.
-
1986 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee who has a life interest in the testamentary trust estate of the late C. H. Kinnison comprising, inter alia, of the shares in an Indian company and commission from the managing agency of an Indian company can be said to have an interest in such shares and commission and that such interest is property located in India so as to be taxable under the Wealth-tax Act - question must be answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee
-
1986 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Sale of insulated copper wires manufactured by the appellant-assessee - sales accounts of the assessee showed that the assessee had sold winding wires used in the manufacture of different types of electrical gadgets and for the purpose of transmission of electricity. These are winding wires, employed in coils, winding of armatures, etc., and cannot be identified as "cables" contemplated by item 7 of list of priority industries- hence assessee is not entitled to development rebate
-
1986 (8) TMI 1 - SC ORDER
Plant - depreciation - assessee acquired drawings and patterns - depreciation u/s 32 is allowed
....
|
|