Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1987 1987 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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

Case Laws

Showing 241 to 244 of 244 Records

• 1987 (9) TMI 4
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh directed the Tribunal to refer two questions of law to the court regarding the discretionary or mandatory nature of provisions in section 183(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the original assessment order could be rectified under section 154 in a specific case. The court found that these questions needed clarification and ordered the Tribunal to refer them for opinion.

  ---

• 1987 (9) TMI 3
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the deemed income of Rs. 20,000 added to the total income of the assessee in the assessment year could be considered for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
  2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative, whether the levy of penalty could be justified in terms of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, notwithstanding the fact that the said Explanation was not invoked by the Department while levying the penalty.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: The case involved the imposition of a penalty on an assessee for concealment of income. The Tribunal reversed the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, stating that the burden lay on the Department to prove that the undisclosed amount was actually earned by the assessee during the relevant year. The Department argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the amendment made in section 271 by the Finance Act, 1964. The court analyzed the relevant provisions and held that the Explanation added by the Finance Act, 1964, shifted the burden of proof to the assessee in cases where the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income. The court emphasized that the Tribunal should have proceeded on the basis of the presumption against the assessee as per the Explanation and allowed the assessee an opportunity to rebut the presumption with evidence.
  
  Issue 2: The court referred to various decisions, including a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to support the interpretation of the Explanation added to section 271(1) by the Finance Act, 1964. It noted that the Explanation permitted a rebuttable presumption to be raised against the assessee. The court concluded that in the instant case, the deemed income of Rs. 20,000 could be considered for the levy of penalty based on the presumption unless the assessee successfully rebutted the presumption. The court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal, taking into account the presumption and allowing the assessee to produce necessary material. The court answered both questions in favor of the Department based on the legal interpretation of the Explanation and the burden of proof under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  In conclusion, the court emphasized the importance of considering the legal amendments and interpretations in determining the imposition of penalties for income concealment, highlighting the shift in the burden of proof to the assessee as per the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1987 (9) TMI 2
  

  Respondent supplied cool, filtered and chilled air through air-conditioning apparatus to the lessees in the building under consideration, it was an " industrial company " within the meaning of section 2(6)(d) - rate of tax applicable - Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court are right in holding that the question i.e. whether the respondent was an " industrial company ", is one of fact - no question of law arises

  ---

• 1987 (9) TMI 1
  

  It is settled by authority long accepted that tax can be recovered from an assessee only when it becomes a debt due from him and that it becomes a debt due when a notice of demand calling for payment of the tax has been served on the assessee - matter is remanded to the High Court

  ---

1 ....910111213