|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 520 of 534 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 34
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of the sum of Rs. 51,18,950 being the amount debited to its account by United Exports and allocated to the assessee ?" When the assessee bona fide thought that there was no prospect of recovery of value of the goods which had sunk in the sea for which the bank had already made payment and debit entry was made by United Exports against the assessee, the loss arose during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. The mere fact that United Exports contested the liability is not a ground to hold that there was no accrual of liability. - we are satisfied that the loss occurred because of the loss of goods said to have exported by the foreign seller in the foreign soil. Accordingly, we do not approve the view of the Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled to claim the deduction of the amount as a business loss.
-
2002 (9) TMI 33
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding, and had valid materials to hold that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by the assessee to Shri A. M. Buhari is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Bradford undertaking ?- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding, and had valid materials to hold that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by the assessee is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Bradford undertaking and also the amount of Rs. 16,000 spent by the assessee towards legal expenses in connection with the compromise agreement is a permissible deduction in computing the capital gains in the assessee's case? – Both the questions is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 32
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure on the air travel of the assessee's wife was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and that the benefit derived by the wife would detract from the exclusiveness of the outlay, so as to render it ineligible as a deductible expenditure?" - we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 31
"Whether, Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that commission and discounts on sales amounting to Rs. 9,15,115 should not be taken into account while considering the disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - The term "sales promotion" is not to be confused with the sales actually effected. While "sales promotion" are measures taken by the assessee to promote generally the sales of the products manufactured by it, or dealt with by it, individual sales made in the normal course of business on commercial terms either directly to the customer, or through its wholesale and other dealers to whom, under the terms of trade discounts and commissions are allowed, cannot be regarded as sales promotion. - The question referred to us is required to be, and is answered against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 30
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 32AB on the ground that he was not doing the eligible business or carrying on profession but the firm was carrying on the eligible business and hence was allowed deduction under section 32AB. - The question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 29
1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Hazari Mal Milap Chand Surana and Mannalal Nirmalkumar Surana and Co. could not in law be treated as one firm for the purposes of assessment?" – 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assets declared under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975, were capital assets of the assessee-firm?" – 3."Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,936 from the total income of the assessee?" - we answer questions Nos. 1 and 3 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 is misconceived, as the Tribunal itself held that the assets in question are capital assets.
-
2002 (9) TMI 28
Issues:
1. Explanation of undisclosed income from cash seized during search.
2. Determination of income from gambling.
3. Source of investment in purchasing a car.
4. Source of investment in shares found during search.
5. Source of funds for property purchase.
Issue 1: Explanation of undisclosed income from cash seized during search
The appellant sought to challenge the addition of Rs. 36,700 to the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,10,000 seized during the search. The Tribunal reasoned that the appellant, a director of companies, had substantial salary income and earnings from speculation in shares, justifying the addition. The High Court found no substantial question of law on this matter and declined to frame any question.
Issue 2: Determination of income from gambling
The Department raised questions regarding the appellant's income from gambling, amounting to Rs. 1.85 lakhs, based on findings during the search. The Tribunal limited the addition to Rs. 1,06,500, considering cultural practices during Diwali for the Gujarati community. The High Court found no substantial question of law and rejected the proposed questions.
Issue 3: Source of investment in purchasing a car
Questions were raised regarding the source of funds for purchasing a car, with discrepancies in the purchase amount. The Tribunal found the car to be third-hand, valuing it at Rs. 1,63,741, refuting the Assessing Officer's presumption of a higher purchase price. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, noting no perversity in the decision.
Issue 4: Source of investment in shares found during search
The Department questioned the source of investment in shares found during the search, adding Rs. 3,33,070 to the appellant's income. The Tribunal concluded that the shares were not in the appellant's possession and attributed them to the appellant's son, a share broker. The High Court found the Tribunal's view reasonable and declined to entertain the appeal on this point.
Issue 5: Source of funds for property purchase
Regarding the purchase of an office and a shop, questions arose about the source of funds, particularly the alleged cash payment for the office. The Tribunal held that the addition based on conjecture without proof of additional cash payment was unwarranted. The High Court concurred, emphasizing the lack of evidence and prevailing market rates, dismissing the appeal.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of providing relevant annexures in appeals arising from block assessments. Directions were issued to ensure the availability of necessary records for a comprehensive review by the court, benefiting both parties and facilitating a more informed decision-making process.
-
2002 (9) TMI 27
Penalty - A notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was issued on March 31, 1989. In response, the assessee by its letter dated December 5, 1990, denied that it has suppressed the income. It also denied that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. - we are of the view that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Tribunal. The reasons are obvious. The entire case has proceeded on the basis that the Explanation has not been invoked by the Department. By reason of the Explanation, the burden is on the assessee to prove the circumstances stated in the Explanation and on his failure to prove those circumstances, the assessee is deemed to have concealed particulars of his income or he is deemed to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Once the Explanation is held to be an integral part of the section 271(1)(c), then the burden will shift to the assessee and in that light, the Tribunal will have to consider the facts of this case de novo.
-
2002 (9) TMI 26
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in determining the reasonableness of salary paid to the sons of the applicant, Sri Anoop Kumar Khandewal and Sh. Alok Kumar Khandelwal, at Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 2,500 per month, respectively, by comparing their salaries with that of the salary of a peon working with the assessee-applicant?" - assessee claimed expenditure of Rs. 1,32,000 on account of payment of salary to these two sons. - we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (9) TMI 25
Change iin valuation method - "(i) Whether, the assessee was barred by any provision of the law from changing its stock-in-trade valuation method from the cost basis, which was followed for the assessment year 1994-95, being the year of commencement of business, to the method of cost or market value, whichever is lower? - (ii) Whether, an assessee is permitted in law to change its method of stock valuation to benefit itself in the matter of incidence of tax, provided such change is made honestly, and a sufficient degree of consistency is disclosed in the matter of change, so as to satisfy the requirements of section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - (iii) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in finding that the assessee had not satisfied the conditions stipulated in law which permit an assessee to change the stock valuation method in one particular assessment year, the relevant assessment year in this case being 1995-96?" – All questions are answered in favour of assessee
-
2002 (9) TMI 24
Transfer of business – going concern – capital gains - assessee has come up in reference against the finding of the Tribunal that the transaction of sale of assets as a going concern is exigible to capital gain tax whereas the Department has come up in reference on the question of deduction available under section 48 in respect of the land and the deletion of the addition on account of the closing stock. The Department has also sought a reference with regard to the interest levied under section 234B - Tribunal ought to have held that as the business as a going concern was the capital asset which was the subject of the transfer and not the individual assets and the gain, if any, on the transfer of the business as a whole had to be computed and brought to tax - Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the land must be treated as a long-term capital asset and the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 48(2)
-
2002 (9) TMI 23
Capital gain tax – transfer of shares - assessee obtained a legal title to the shares only when the share certificate was issued by the company specifying the shares with distinctive numbers - Even if the money belonging to the appellant was appropriated to the share deposit account of the company that by itself will not amount to allotment of shares for shares can be issued only after the company passes a resolution deciding to allot shares - view of the Tribunal is endorsed that the appellant got the shares only on May 31, 1988, i.e., the date at which the share certificates were issued to the appellant - In this case the share certificates were issued to the assessee on May 31, 1988. In that view of the matter, according to us, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the capital gains have to be assessed on the transfer of the shares by the assessee treating it as a short-term capital gains
-
2002 (9) TMI 22
"1. Whether, in the light of the admission of the assessee that the vehicle was run only on April 1, 1992, the assessee is entitled to depreciation for the assessment year 1992-93? - 2. Whether, in view of the fact that registration for operating as a contract carriage was obtained on May 5, 1992, is not depreciation admissible only from the assessment year 1993-94?" - Since the contract carriage permit was obtained for the vehicle only on May 5, 1992, it cannot be said legally that the vehicle was kept ready for use on or before March 31, 1992 - We accordingly answer the two questions against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in holding that the assessee had kept the vehicle ready for use during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1992-93.
-
2002 (9) TMI 21
Writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the notice dated August 21, 2002 issued by respondent No.6 (the Assistant CIT) u/s 158BC, by which the petitioner was requested to prepare a true and correct return of his total income including the undisclosed income in respect of which he as individual is assessable for the block period mentioned in section 158B(a) and further respondent No. 5 (the Deputy Director (Investigation), Income-tax) and respondent No. 6 may be restrained from taking any proceedings under Chapter XIV-B against the petitioner till the question as to who exercises jurisdiction over the petitioner as Assessing Officer is decided by this court – Staying the operation of the show cause notice dated August 21,2002, passed by the Assistant Commissioner is not proper unless there is a case of grave injustice - Held that the operation of notice issued by the Assistant CIT is not liable to be stayed
-
2002 (9) TMI 20
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - value of the gifted property - taxable gift -exemption under section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift-tax Act - respondent-assessee is an individual owning about 30 acres of rubber estate in Punalur. Out of the above, he had gifted one acre of rubber estate to his daughter at the time of her marriage – Held that the obligation of the Christian father to maintain his daughter obviously ceases when he has given her away in marriage and once the marriage takes place, the obligation to maintain her is that of her husband - In view of the finding rendered by the Tribunal that the gift in question is not exigible to tax under the Act, the question of valuation was not considered by the Tribunal. Now that this question is answered against the assessee, it is necessary to direct the Tribunal to consider the question of valuation.
-
2002 (9) TMI 19
Whether Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 26,729 actually incurred and for which liability to pay has arisen in the accounting year can be disallowed as not an admissible deduction in computing the income from business? - Held that the actual expenditure incurred has to be allowed notwithstanding the method of accounting the assessee followed – Thus this question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue – Whether Tribunal was correct in negativing the claim for the investment allowance u/s 32A, in respect of computers installed in its data processing division? - Whether Tribunal having held that computers are not office appliances erred in law in not considering the data processing division as a separate industrial undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 32A?" – These two questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
2002 (9) TMI 18
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no element of gift was involved when the assessee retired from the firm in which he was a partner?" - In view of our judgment in CGT v. P.K. Somarajan Pillai, the question specified above has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We answer the question accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 17
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no element of gift was involved when the assessee retired from the firm in which he was a partner?" - we are of the view that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that when a partner retires from a partnership firm there is no element of gift involved. In the above circumstances, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (9) TMI 16
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 – in order to apply for registration, even a religious trust must be one created for charitable purposes - Held that petitioner-trust is not a charitable one and, therefore, it is not entitled to apply for registration under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 - whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in cancelling the registration on the ground that the trust is a private religious trust not entitled to exemption under the Act - Second contention of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner cannot cancel the registration erroneously granted other than for the reasons stated in sub-section (12) of section 16 is also unsustainable
-
2002 (9) TMI 15
Special deduction - The only question involved herein is whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the respondent-assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the interest and dividend income of Rs. 2,50,664 derived out of investment in National Savings Certificates, Indira Vikas Patras, Kisan Vikas Patras, short-term fixed deposits in banks and shares of Maharashtra State Finance Corporation of India. - We hold that the view ultimately taken by the Tribunal, though not on a very sound reasoning, has to be upheld as correct. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
....
|
9911796707
