|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 6071 Records
-
2002 (12) TMI 35
Reconstitution of the firm OR dissolution of firm – assessment - "1. Whether, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the incomes of the two periods could not be clubbed? - 2. Whether the Department's view that there was only a change in the constitution of the firm and that only one single assessment was justified in view of the provisions of section 187(1), is correct in law?" - It is not disputed that the three partners were common. Both the minors who were admitted to the benefits of partnership were dropped and five new partners were taken into partnership in view of section 187(2)(a) this is a case of reconstitution of the firm and not of its dissolution. As such only one assessment has to be made for the assessment year. In view of this both the first question is answered in the negative and the second is answered in the affirmative, that is, both the questions are answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee
-
2002 (12) TMI 34
Income arising out of the business of the erstwhile firm - capital gains arising out of the sale of the assets of the firm to the present assessee-AOPs-3 – assessability – deduction u/s 37 - deduction of amount being interest and service charges paid to financial institutions - Whether the assessee-AOPs-3 was entitled to claim depreciation on lands, buildings, plant and machinery - Whether the assessee was entitled to claim any deduction on the alleged expenditure of acquisition of patent rights, copy rights and know-how in terms of sections 35A and 35AB - deduction of amount representing the interest paid to the outgoing partners – deduction of amount representing undistributed and accumulated profits
-
2002 (12) TMI 33
Capital gains arising out of the sale of the assets of the firm –assessability - Tribunal is not right in holding that capital gains arising out of the sale of the assets of the firm was assessable in the hands of the individual partners and not in the hands of the firm - Tribunal was not right in concluding that the capital gains arising out of the sale of the business of the firm as a going concern was liable to be assessed in the individual hands of the erstwhile partners, except the three, who as association of persons have purchased the assets of the firm
-
2002 (12) TMI 32
Benefit of the section 80HH - "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that for the assessment year 1989-90 the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, even though Hosur, in which town, the assessee's industrial undertaking is located had ceased to be a notified backward area in the year 1986?" - More than one view is possible on the interpretation of section 80HH of the Act and there is no glaring mistake present in the order of the Appellate Tribunal requiring the Tribunal to rectify its order.
-
2002 (12) TMI 31
Contribution to the three welfare trusts - deduction u/s 37 - "Whether, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the contribution of Rs. 12,03,000 to the three welfare trusts created by the assessee, is an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79?" - There is no material adduced by the Income-tax Officer to establish that either the creation of the trusts was not bona fide or the funds contributed by the assessee were utilised for purposes other than the welfare of the employees - decision of the assessee to establish welfare trusts for the employees in the year in which the firm earned huge profits was a prudent commercial decision to strengthen the bonds between the employer and the employees – thus deduction is allowable
-
2002 (12) TMI 30
Valuation of stock - Whether, Tribunal was justified in holding that the higher market rate method of valuation of closing stock adopted by the assessee is correct, without appreciating that acceptance of the said method has resulted in a doctored abnormal gross profit ratio of 2054.60 per cent. which, by no yard stick of the basic principles of accountancy can be held as proper reflection of income? - (b) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee has followed the market rate method for valuation of closing stock for several years, therefore, the same cannot be disturbed by the Assessing Officer? - We answer both questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee
-
2002 (12) TMI 29
Deduction under section 32A - Tribunal holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 32A on the plant and machinery used in construction work - Tribunal has decided the issue only on the basis of the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. - Tribunal in the instant case has not gone into the factual matter as there is nothing in the order of the Tribunal to show the basis on which the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance - matter is remitted to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the entire matter afresh
-
2002 (12) TMI 28
Whether, Tribunal was right in holding that there was nothing wrong in the assessee valuing the closing stock at cost instead of at market price? - Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no transfer of capital assets of the firm to the partners even though the assessee-firm stood dissolved on December 18, 1987?" - Admittedly, at no point of time, the business which was being carried on by the firm despite its dissolution had been closed during the previous year pertaining to the assessment year in question and the same set of persons continued to carry on the same as an association of persons with the same share ratio. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was nothing wrong on the part of the Assessing Officer in valuing the closing stock at cost instead of market price as on the date of dissolution of the firm - Questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department
-
2002 (12) TMI 27
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(a) - false claim for deduction of certain amounts under section 35(1)(iv) which deals with the expenditure on scientific research - available evidence clearly shows that the sale deed produced by the assessee for the purchase of Chennai property that part of the property was meant for administrative purpose, yet the assessee claimed not only the entire amount paid but also the future amount payable and the interest also as if the assessee had incurred the expenditure towards scientific research - As far as the Gujarat property is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence at all even for the agreement of sale and there was an agreement entered into with a middleman to procure the land for the assessee from some Adivasies - assessee had not put the land for scientific research - conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not correct - the order of the Tribunal cancelling the penalty levied under section 273(2)(a) is not sustainable
-
2002 (12) TMI 26
Disallowance of the expenditure incurred under livestock maintenance, rejection of claim for allowances of common expenses incurred for the head office and disallowance of managerial remuneration expenditure - We are of the view that there is no irregularity or infirmity as to the finding arrived at by the authorities below in respect of the disallowance of abovesaid three expenses as claimed by the petitioner.
-
2002 (12) TMI 25
Allegation of undervaluation of the closing stock of the free sugar - "Whether, Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to adopt the value of its closing stock at a rate which was prevalent on October 25, 1983, whereas its previous year ended on September 30, 1983?" - There was no finding of fact by the Tribunal that the system of accounting adopted by the assessee would disclose the true and correct profit of the year in question - In the absence of any such finding, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the value of the closing stock on the date which was prevailing subsequent to the end of the accounting year as the market value of the stock as at the end of the previous year. Accordingly, the question of law referred to us is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue
-
2002 (12) TMI 24
Co-operative Societies - 'purchase bonus' - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the 'purchase bonus' is not allowable deduction out of profits and gains of business to the society?" – This question is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-society was not entitled to deduction of Rs. 40,000 under section 80P(2)(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" – This question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee
-
2002 (12) TMI 23
Creation of trust - Whether, Tribunal is right in law and had valid material in holding that the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs paid by the assessee to Dynavision Dealers' Welfare Trust is allowable as a business expenditure, laid out wholly and exclusively for its business u/s 37(1)? – This question is answered in negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue – "Whether Tribunal was right in holding that by the transfer of a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs by the assessee to the Dynavision Dealers' Welfare Trust, a valid trust has come into existence with the objects set out in the trust deed?" – This question is answered in affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee
-
2002 (12) TMI 22
Capital gains arising out of the sale of the immovable property of the deceased - taxability - Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale of the immovable property was effected by the co-sharers individually and not by the Hindu undivided family – Thus, Tribunal was justified in treating the entire capital gains arising out of the sale of the immovable property of the deceased, taxable in the hands of the individual co-sharers - Tribunal was right in holding that the notice u/s 148 was untenable since the HUF did not exist, and that the capital gains arising was not taxable in the HUF's hands
-
2002 (12) TMI 21
For the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 23,46,558 towards payment of bonus which includes a sum of Rs. 12,81,108 a liability as per the agreement for payment of bonus entered into on December 22, 1992. In the assessment the Assessing Officer allowed deduction for a sum of Rs. 10,65,450 only which was the provision created in the accounts during the previous year and disallowed the balance of Rs. 12,81,108. - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of the total sum of Rs. 23,46,558 as the assessee has made the payment before the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) read with the first proviso to section 43B. – Tribunal upheld the order of Commissioner – no infirmity in Tribunal’s order
-
2002 (12) TMI 20
Scope of the appellate power of the Tribunal under section 254 - Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings, the Tribunal was bound to allow such questions to be raised when it is necessary to consider the question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee – Thus it is held that Tribunal was not justified in law in not entertaining the additional grounds raised by the assessee simply on the ground that such grounds have not been raised either before the assessing authority or before the first appellate authority
-
2002 (12) TMI 19
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - Whether, Tribunal is right in law and also had valid materials in holding that transaction by which a self-acquired property of the assessee was alienated in favour of her son by way of a partition deed is only a family arrangement and, therefore, is outside the purview of the Gift-tax Act? - 2. Whether, Tribunal is right in law and also had valid materials in holding that the transaction by which the assessee leased out the properties to her husband and two daughters at a lease rent which is far below the annual income of the property is only a family arrangement and is outside the purview of the Gift-tax Act?" - We answer both the questions of law referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (12) TMI 18
Accrual of income - "Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the HUDCO administration service charges collected and retained by the assessee at the time of disbursal of the loans to the urban local bodies had accrued due to the assessee at that stage itself, and therefore, assessable to tax in the year in which the loan amount was disbursed?" - question has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the respondent and against the assessee.
-
2002 (12) TMI 17
Opportunity of hearing – Audit – Held that before passing an order under section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessing authority should hear the assessee - if assessee was heard, the assessee could have explained to the assessing authority that there was no complexity in his accounts and therefore it was unnecessary for a separate audit – Held that even in emergent cases action can not be taken without hearing - Further, the post-decisional hearing will not, in any way, redress its grievance as no one will repay the amount paid by it to the auditor.
-
2002 (12) TMI 16
"Whether, assessee was entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(xvia) in respect of the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980?" - I hold that the Wealth-tax Officer, Assessing Officer and the Tribunal were not right in this behalf and in my view the assessee in this case had by their mere act of not surrendering the gold bonds claimed the exemption. The simple plain and obvious fact is that the State granted exemption in return for the right to retain the gold and when that right was given up in favour of the bond holder it withdraws their right to exemption. In view of the same I answer that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(xvia) in respect of the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980
............
|
9911796707
