|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 534 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 54
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fair market value of the closing stock as against the book value agreed upon by the partners should not be adopted when the firm was dissolved and dissolution accounts drawn up?" – Held that where there is no cessation of business, the closing stock ought to be valued at cost or market price, whichever is lower. The assessee in this case having taken the cost which was lower than the market price, there was no scope for revising the value of the closing stock upward on the ground that the market price was higher. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 53
Mutual Concern - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the principle of mutuality is not satisfied in this case? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that income arises only from those who have taken loans and hence the right to receive a portion of the income by those who have not taken the loans but have made deposits to the assessee vitiates the principle of mutuality?" "1. Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction of interest on the deposits to the members of the society for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1991-92? - 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials to hold that the assessee had satisfied the test of mutuality for the assessment year 1991-92 and accordingly its income is eligible for exemption for the assessment year 1991-92 on that basis?"
-
2002 (9) TMI 52
Weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of interest paid on shipping loan and bank charges - weighted deduction under section 35B of 50 per cent. of the expenditure incurred on packing materials and printing - weighted deduction under section 35B on the expenditure on salary and bonus - weighted deduction under section 35B of commission paid to agent abroad – weighted deduction in respect of the items relating to prospect estate and warehousing charges - The next question is with regard to the deduction of bank guarantee commission as revenue expenditure - The next issue is regarding the deduction under section 37 of bonus paid in excess of the limit specified in section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. - The next is regarding the deduction under section 37 of the commission paid to Tara Agencies and Bhansali Brothers.
-
2002 (9) TMI 51
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and proper interpretation of law, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the interest payable to the Sales Tax Department is also 'tax' and the provisions of section 43B of the Act are applicable therein?" - the liability to pay interest is an allowable deduction. The object of section 43B is to curb the activities of those taxpayers who do not discharge their statutory liability of payment of sales tax or excise duty for long periods but claim deduction in that regard from the income on the ground that the liability to pay this amount had been incurred by them in relevant previous year. The question is decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 50
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the customs duty and excise duty actually paid and shown as current assets in the balance-sheet and not charged to the profit and loss account could be deducted under section 43B in computing the income of the assessee?" - The fact that the duty paid was not charged to the profit and loss account by itself would not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction under section 43B. It is open to the assessee to file an adjustment statement before the Assessing Officer. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the duty paid is a legitimate charge on the gross profits when the gross profits has been properly ascertained by valuing the closing stock as also the opening stock including therein the duty paid on such stock. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 49
The issue for our consideration in this appeal is whether unabsorbed loss can be carried forward and allowed in the case of this assessee when the loss was suffered by four co-operative societies in the preceding year? - Sub-section (2) of section 78 also extends the benefit of carry forward or set off of losses in case of succession. As in the case in hand, after the merger of the four societies a new federation has come into existence. After the merger of the four societies it cannot be said that the federation has succeeded or inherited the four societies on April 1, 1993. Therefore, under sub-section (2) of section 78 also, the benefit of carry forward and set off of losses of the four societies also cannot be allowed in the hands of the assessee-federation. - In the result, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in denying the benefit of carry forward and set off of losses suffered by the four societies against the income/profit of the assessee-federation in the assessment year in hand.
-
2002 (9) TMI 48
"1. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the motor cars, land at Pallikaranai village and factory building at Avadi are includible in the net wealth of the appellant-company despite the fact that all of them were acquired out of own funds of the appellant-company and such inclusion is against the intention of the Legislature? - 2. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expression 'motor cars' occurring in section 40(3)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1983, leaves no ambiguity in interpretation and as such, motor cars forming part of plant and machinery in the block of assets for depreciation under section 32 of the Income tax Act 1961, as part of the plant and machinery, should be construed as motor cars simpliciter as specified for the purpose of section 40(3)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1983? - 3. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the factory building at Avadi cannot be treated as business asset used for the purpose of business of the appellant-company as per interpretation of section 40(3)(vi), in the facts and circumstances of the case?" - We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal as also of the statutory authorities who have rightly held that the factory building was not to be excluded while considering the assets required to be valued for the purpose of wealth-tax. - All questions referred to us are, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 47
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the trust carrying on business should be assessed only in the hands of the beneficiaries and not in the status of an association of persons as per the provisions of section 161(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - That the trustee is to be assessed is evident from the language employed in that provision. The "person" referred to therein is the person mentioned in section 160(1)(iv). The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the assessment should be on the beneficiary only and not on the trustee. The reference made in the question to a decision rendered by the Bench in the case of another trust was a decision which required the assessment to be made on the assessee even in respect of the business income, even after the introduction of section 161(1A). - The question referred to us is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 46
Conversion of Proprietary Business into Firm – capital gains - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming that the entire transaction by the petitioner is a sham or device? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the device encompasses the goodwill amounting to Rs. 2,72,500 also?" - The first question referred to us is, therefore, required to be and is answered against the assessee, by holding that the entire transaction was a device adopted by the assessee to avoid the payment of capital gains tax and that the assessee is liable for the payment of that tax on the value of the proprietary business made over to the firm. - So far as the second question is concerned the. Assessing Officer had not brought the goodwill to tax as it was a self-generated asset and during this assessment year the statute did not provide for the levy of capital gains tax on that goodwill. That question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 45
"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the applicant would not be eligible for deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to the two sums of ₹ 5,87,044 and ₹ 5,16,853 in view of the same having been claimed under section 35(2B) and in spite of the same having been disallowed under the said section. We, answer the question referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 44
The assessee, a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India is engaged in the business of general insurance. In its returns of income for the relevant assessment years, the assessee did not include the amount of interest outstanding on term and bridge loans, etc., on the plea that the debtors had defaulted in making payments and the recoveries were outstanding for more than one year. While completing the assessments, the Assessing Officer, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT, held that the said interest was liable to be included in the assessee's total income. He, accordingly, included the amount of interest accrued on such accounts in the total income of the assessee. - Tribunal, vide the impugned orders, has accepted the stand of the assessee that since the profits and gains of its business have been computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule to the Act, as stipulated in section 44 of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot make any adjustments therein. - in the absence of any finding by the Assessing Officer that the taxable income has not been computed in accordance with section 44 of the Act, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal.
-
2002 (9) TMI 43
Section 263 - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not correct in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" - The view of the Tribunal that claims made by the assessee was rejected by reason of the order of "no assessment" is, therefore, not correct. The further inference drawn by it that there was no prejudice caused to the Revenue as there was no acceptance of the claim which showed a substantial amount of a carried forward loss on unabsorbed investment allowance, unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate is also not correct. - Commissioner was justified in invoking his power under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The question referred is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 42
"Whether, in law and on facts, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly reached a conclusion that the penal provisions could not be invoked in the case of the assessee ?" - the Revenue has to establish that the assessee, when it filed a particular estimate, knew or had reason to believe that it was not genuine and was spurious. Such mental state of the assessee can be inferred from the relevant objective facts. In the instant case, the Tribunal has come to a specific finding that the data which had been submitted by the assessee, while giving the estimates, was based on the budgeted data which the assessee believed to be true. - we are of the view that the Tribunal had rightly reached a conclusion that the penal provision could not have been invoked in the case of the assessee. Under the circumstances, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 41
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in overlooking the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of A. S. K. Rathnaswamy Nadar Firm v. CIT and of the Patna High Court in the case of Chandmul Rajgarhia v. CIT and holding that the salary paid to the partners should not be disallowed under section 40(b) - we hold that the salary paid to the partners who represented their Hindu undivided families was required to be disallowed under section 40(b).
-
2002 (9) TMI 40
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case : (i) the expenditure incurred on the foreign travel of the wives of the directors is an allowable deduction ? (ii) should not the Tribunal have considered the claim independently and on merits ?" - we are satisfied that the Tribunal has not given reasons with regard to the travelling expenses of the wives of the directors. Mere statement that the travelling expenses incurred by the wives of the directors were considered to be admissible expenses does not mean that this is not personal expenditure. The assessee has to prove that it is not to be treated as personal expenditure. Since, we do not find any reasons stated, according to us, the matter has to be considered by the Tribunal again - case is remanded
-
2002 (9) TMI 39
Revenue or capital expenditure - payment made by the company to brothers - The finding that the payment made by the company to these brothers is in the nature of revenue receipt in the hands of the brothers, would not negate the separate juristic existence of the company. The company continues to remain a legal entity with a right to hold property, to contract, etc. The true character of the payment made by it to these brothers who are shareholders and directors and who as partners of the firm own the buildings and the equipment used by the company for running the hotel, has to be judged by looking at the reality after removing or piercing the veil of the company, as the circumstances of the case justify such an exercise. The purpose of the deed of compensation in reality was only to screen the payment made under that deed from liability to income-tax in the hands of the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 38
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal having held that the expenses on management fees and lease rent were incurred before the commencement of production was right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure on a spread over basis on the same lines as in section 35D ? - The deductions allowable under the Act have necessarily to be allowed in accordance with the provisions of the Act as it exists. The Act must be applied as one finds it and it was not open to the Tribunal to allow amortisation for expenditure for which the Act does not make provision for amortisation. – Question is answered in negative
-
2002 (9) TMI 37
Book profit - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the book profits for the purpose of section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to be computed after deducting the extra shift allowance relating to the earlier years and giving effect to clause (iv) of Explanation to section 115J ?"
the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 36
"1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the action of the lower authorities in denying the deduction under section 37(1) of the Act on the provision for Rs. 8,50,000 created towards breach of certain export obligation based on director's order dated November 20, 1989 ? - This first question is answered against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue. - 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the replacement expenditure on certain machines as on the capital field and not on the revenue field ?" – The mere fact that the work performed by these two machines was earlier done manually would not make these items of machinery fall outside the revenue field. Hence, the second question is answered against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 35
"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting section 154 petition in spite of the background that section 154 petition was filed against section 143(1) intimation ? - (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging maximum marginal rate of tax in spite of income under the head 'Business' was loss ?" - The first question referred to us is answered in favour of the Revenue. The second question is returned as unanswered in view of the answer to the first question.
....
|
9911796707
