|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 6071 Records
-
2002 (12) TMI 75
This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed against the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated August 31, 2000. The case relates to penalty under section 273(2)(a) of the Act for allegedly furnishing a false estimate of advance tax. - Only one point has been pressed by learned counsel for the appellant. He submitted that before issuing notice for initiating penalty proceedings under section 273(2)(a) of the Act the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction. - "it is the assessing authority who has to form his own opinion and record his satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings". - We are, therefore, of the opinion that although the Assessing Officer must have satisfaction as required under section 273 of the Act, it is not necessary for him to record that satisfaction in writing before initiating penalty proceedings under section 273 of the Act.
-
2002 (12) TMI 74
Educational Institution – claim for exemption - ,"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereby granting the benefit of section 10(22) to the assessee? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Children Book Trust [1992] 63 Taxman 385 is applicable? - 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee under section 10(22) of the Act even in respect of the society's independent income and when there are infringements under section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - the question of eligibility of exemption under the said section has to be determined with reference to the objects of the assessee (society) and the exemption cannot be denied merely because while the working of the society some surplus results. Similarly, in the context of exemption under section 10(22), the conditions as stipulated in either section 11 or 13 of the Act are irrelevant.
-
2002 (12) TMI 73
Interest Tax Act, 1974 - Charge Of Tax - Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that loans and advances do not include interest on securities, bonds and debentures and, therefore, not liable to tax under the provisions of the Interest-tax Act when the interest on securities fall within the meaning of 'interest chargeable to tax' as defined under section 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974. Moreover, requirements of tax deduction at source from interest on securities as per section 193 of the Income-tax Act makes it clear that interest on securities is chargeable to tax under the Interest-tax Act, 1974 - we answer the above question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed
-
2002 (12) TMI 72
Interest-Tax Act - Charge Of Tax, - Whether interest on debentures, bonds and securities is taxable under section 5 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974? - Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (revisional authority under section 20 of the Interest-tax Act) was right in rejecting the revision application of the petitioner on the ground of non-maintainability?
-
2002 (12) TMI 71
Business Expenditure - "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest payment of Rs. 1,38,940 made by the assessee to its partners is not hit by section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - we hold that when section 171(9) of the Act statutorily declares a partial partition taking place after December 31, 1978, as null and void, the consequences and incidents which flow from such statutory declaration are that the Hindu undivided family shall be deemed to continue for the purpose of the Income-tax Act and it shall be the owner of the property and further it shall be deemed to be the recipient of the income from such property for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the interest payments made by the firm, though to the partners, shall be treated as if the firm has made the interest payments to the joint family and such payments are not hit by section 40(b) of the Act. Consequently, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the interest payments made are not disallowable under section 40(b)
-
2002 (12) TMI 70
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in overlooking sub-section (7) of section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, and holding that the said section relating to levy of wealth-tax in the case of closely held companies does not apply to the assessee-club, which has been declared on its own request as a company under section 2(h)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act?" - we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to a clear and correct conclusion and no irregularity could be attributed to the order of the Tribunal. We are also not expressing any opinion on the question whether the assessee is assessable to tax under section 21AA of the Wealth-tax Act as the said question is not before us. Hence, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (12) TMI 69
Payments in Cash - The petitioners in these original petitions are income-tax assessees engaged in business. They are challenging the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides for 20 per cent. disallowance of expenditure in excess of Rs. 20,000 where such payments are made other than through account payee cheques or demand drafts drawn on a bank. The computation of income has to be therefore subject to statutory provisions and Parliament is absolutely competent to fix ceiling on expenditure and lay down conditions for allowance. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners and the original petitions are accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 68
Income Tax Survey - co-operative banks and societies are challenging the validity of notices issued to each of them under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act by various authorities under the Act. - I hold that the notices are within the powers of the officers who issued the same and the co-operative societies and co-operative banks are bound to furnish the particulars called for in the notices, failing which the Department will be free to conduct search or take penal action permissible under the Act. However, having regard to the pendency of these original petitions, I grant the petitioners six weeks time to furnish the particulars to the concerned officers. Time for furnishing information called for under the impugned notices in these original petitions are extended by six weeks from today. The original petitions are devoid of any merit and are dismissed.
-
2002 (12) TMI 67
offence under section 276C - Considering the submission of learned counsel and on a perusal of the record as also the decision of this court in the case of Sureshchand Gupta, I find that in the instant case also the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order of penalty holding that the case of deliberate concealment of the income is not made out. In view of the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, the very foundation of the prosecution of the respondent accused, stands demolished.In the result, the two appeals filed on behalf of the appellant, deserve the fate of dismissal and they are accordingly dismissed
-
2002 (12) TMI 66
Submission of audit report - assessee had given adequate explanation for the delay in submitting its audit report. - section 44AB - Admittedly, the petitioner submitted the audit report on September 9, 1986, which was within the extended time. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that the provision for penalty was not attracted. Moreover, the words "without reasonable cause" have been deleted from section 271B by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986, with effect from September 10, 1986.
-
2002 (12) TMI 65
Learned magistrate acquitted the accused-respondents of the offences punishable under section 276DD read with section 278B - In the Amendment Act of 1987, also there was no saving clause inserted for the pending proceedings. That being so, in the light of the decision of the apex court, the pending proceedings against the accused-respondents cannot continue under the repealed provisions, but a fresh proceeding for imposition of penalty may be initiated under the new provision, i.e., section 271E - no grounds are made out for interfering with the judgment of acquittals rendered by the trial court in the relevant criminal cases against the respective accused-respondents.
-
2002 (12) TMI 64
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the assessments under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, as being made without jurisdiction - the common question of law referred to us is required to be and is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (12) TMI 63
Claim of waiver of interest under section 139(8) denied by the Commissioner. - Commissioner has stated in his order that the Income-tax Officer has stated in his report that the disclosure by the assessee was voluntary prior to the issue of any notice and it was done in good faith. The assessee also cooperated during the assessment proceedings. If the conditions mentioned in clause (c) of section 273A(1) are satisfied some relief has to be given to the assessee, though that relief may either be total waiver of interest or reduction of interest depending upon the facts of the case. However, the Commissioner cannot totally reject the waiver application if the conditions mentioned in clause (c) of section 273A(1) are satisfied. - For the reasons given above this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated July 19, 1984, to the extent that it rejected the petitioner's application for waiver of interest under section 139(8) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner
-
2002 (12) TMI 62
"Whether, Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1984-85?" we reframe the question as under: "Whether, Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1984-85 having remitted the issue relating to the disallowance of the assessee's claim under section 35(1)(iv) for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer which led to imposition of the impugned penalty ?" - Though we answer the question of law as reframed by us in the affirmative, technically still the question whether penalty is leviable or not would depend upon the final order of assessment that may be made by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law.
-
2002 (12) TMI 61
The assessee is a partner in a firm by name Express Traders and it transferred its interest in the firm to another company for a consideration of Rs. 30,000. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1982-83 claimed short-term capital loss and long-term capital lossi - It is impermissible for the assessee to claim that the losses which were already adjusted should once again be considered in its individual assessment as a capital loss, viz., either short-term or long-term capital. Moreover, the alleged losses never arose as there was no transfer of any capital and hence the assessee is ineligible to claim the same as capital loss. We find that the view of the Tribunal that the assessee has not suffered any loss when it received the sum of Rs. 30,000 at the time of retirement is perfectly in order and we do not find any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, warranting interference by us in the order of the Tribunal.
-
2002 (12) TMI 60
Land Acquisition - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and had valid materials to hold that the interest amount received by the assessee in respect of additional compensation awarded by court, should be assessed on accrual basis only, and, accordingly, the interest due for the year alone should be assessed for the assessment year 1982-83?" - we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (12) TMI 59
Benefit of carry forward of loss - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the Assessing Officer has to entertain the return which was filed belatedly and to allow carry forward of loss for the assessment year 1986-87?" - We, hold that the return filed by the assessee is within the time prescribed under section 139(3) of the Act and once we hold that the return, though it is a loss return, was filed within the time prescribed, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of carry forward of loss. We, therefore, hold that the view of the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to carry forward of loss for the assessment year 1986-87 does not suffer from any infirmity and the view of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (12) TMI 58
Demand notices issued by AO – Settlement Commission - The said demand notices have been challenged by the petitioners in all the three cases on the ground that once the Settlement Commission has determined the tax and the interest payable thereon and the Assessing Officer made the calculation in terms of the said order vide annexure 2 in all the three cases, and thereafter the petitioners made the payment, the Assessing Officer subsequently cannot issue a further demand notice with regard to the said period in pursuance of the order of the Settlement Commission. – no case for quashing the impugned demand notices is made out as the same are in terms of the orders of the Settlement Commission. - Held that Assessing Officer was justified in issuing a further demand notice with regard to the period in pursuance of the order of the Settlement Commission
-
2002 (12) TMI 57
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) – concealment - It is not in dispute that before the proceedings with regard to initiation of penalty and rectification started, the assessee had informed the Assessing Officer under his letter dated July 11, 1981, that he had committed mistakes in totalling and this fact denotes that the assessee was not having guilty mind. It is true that the assessee had already received the notice dated July 4, 1981, at the relevant time, but when the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the assessee had no intention of concealing particulars of his income or misguiding the Assessing Officer by making incorrect totals it would not be proper to come to a different conclusion. It is a settled legal position that the finding of fact, which might be arrived at by the Tribunal, should not be interfered with by this court while giving its opinion under the provisions of section 256 of the Act. – penalty not leviable
-
2002 (12) TMI 56
Penal interest paid to the Reserve Bank of India - interest on 'sticky loans' - the assessee has paid the penalty which it could have avoided by putting forth a plausible explanation before the concerned authority but the assessee obviously has suffered the penalty for want of a plausible explanation. - Tribunal is not correct in holding that penal interest paid to the Reserve Bank of India is not disallowable - Further, Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest on 'sticky loans' should be assessed on cash basis and not on accrual basis
............
|
9911796707
