Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1988 1988 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 121 to 140 of 187 Records

• 1988 (6) TMI 67 - ITAT COCHIN
  

  Penalty For Concealment, Concealment Of Income

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect and the quantum of proof necessary would be that required in a civil case, namely, preponderance of probabilities. 19. Though these two decisions were rendered under the old Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ratio of these decisions would apply with equal force in respect of the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) also. In view of these authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court, we do not consider it necessary to examine the other cases cited at the Bar. 20. We therefore respectfully follow the ratio of the two decisions of the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court and hold that the assessee-firm had not furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income to justify the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty levied by the Income-tax Officer and dismiss this appeal.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 66 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... did not spend his entire time at Chail and even in India his stay was interspersed by the frequent visits to UK. The room at Hotel at Chail was utilised not only for Shri Low but for other company s executives visiting Chail and they could use the room when Shri Low was not present. Shri Low was provided residential accommodation by the employer at Patiala for which no rental was paid and therefore, the only perquisite which could be taxed in his hand was 10 per cent of salary plus 2-1/2 percent of salary for furnished furniture. The arguments of the appellant deserves to be accepted. The stay of Shri Low at Chail would have to be treated on the same level as that of a person visiting another city on tour and being provided with hotel accommodation. The addition made by the ITO on this account is deleted and he is directed to adopt the perquisite value offered for taxation by the appellant. 4. Finding no infirmity with the decision reached by the AAC, we dismiss the appeal.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 65 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... has correctly stated that the deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act is subject to the provision of ss. 80A and 80AB and also the definition in s. 80B of the Act. By sub-s. (2) of s. 80A of the Act it has been specifically provided that the aggregate amount of the deduction under this Chapter shall not, in any case, exceed the gross total income of the assessee. Gross total income has been defined in sub-s. (5) of s. 80B as the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, before making any deduction under this Chapter or under s. 280-O . Admittedly gross total income after set off of brought forward losses in the assessment year under consideration has been computed at nil. The computation was not challenged as erroneous. Therefore, under the provisions of s. 80A(2) of the Act deduction under s. 80HHC could not be granted by the authorities below. So we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 5. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 64 - ITAT CALCUTTA-D
  

  Penalty For Failure To File Advance Tax Estimate

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... . While doing so, he has not taken into account tax deductible at source under sub section 194 and 195. Tax deductible at source under sub section 194 and 195 in respect of interest and dividend income from Tata Finally Ltd. will have to be taken into account while computing the assessed tax as defined under section 215(5) for the purpose of determining the quantum of minimum penalty imposable for the default falling under section 273(1)(b). We, therefore, direct the ITO to recompute the quantum of minimum penalty imposable under section 273(1)(b) by first determining the tax on the basis of the regular assessment and then reducing the tax by he amount of tax deductible in accordance with the provisions of sections 194 and 195 in respect of interest and dividend income from Tata Finally Ltd. The ITO shall then redetermine the quantum of penalty at 10 per cent of the shortfall computed in the manner aforesaid. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 63 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B
  

  Deduction Of Tax At Source, Failure To Deduct Or Pay, Recovery Proceedings, Limitation Period

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 62 - ITAT BOMBAY-C
  

  A Partner, Assessment Year, Capital Asset, Capital Gains Tax, Market Value, Partnership Firm

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 61 - ITAT BOMBAY-A
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ng the claim. The Court was merely interpreting the enabling provisions of the IT Act and has only held that it would be within the competence of the ITO to deny the claim if the assessee for any reason fails to file the prescribed particulars. The only conclusion that emerges from the above discussion is that the deduction of the depreciation has to be allowed if the true profits and gains of the business are to be determined and what is chargeable under the IT Act is the income of the assessee computed in the manner and subject to the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, this ground of appeal has no merit and the same is rejected. 14. The alternate ground that the CIT(A) erred in allowing current year depreciation before setting off of brought forward losses of earlier years against the available income has to be rejected in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 60 - ITAT BANGALORE
  

  Exemption, Value Of Cinema Theatre

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t legislative intent (see Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector v. Collector of Excise AIR 1972 SC 1863 at page 1868). We find that all these conditions are satisfied in this case to attract this rule so that we are convinced that a cinema theatre was intended to be included in the category of buildings exempt from tax even from the very inception. 10. It may also be noted that even a cinema house contains certain office premises and since it will not be possible to bifurcate the asset, it can also be said that the building can be regarded as office premises, so as to be exempt under that category also. Since we are of the opinion that the asset itself is exempt, we find it unnecessary to consider the grounds of appeal relating to the valuation of the asset. 11. In the circumstances, we accept the claim of the assessee that a cinema, a theatre is exempt from wealth-tax and since the assessee has no other chargeable asset, the assessments are annulled. The appeals are allowed.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 59 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... submissions advanced before us. To our mind the words exclusively used by him for residential purposes throughout the period of 12 months immediately preceding the valuation date should be interpreted pragmatically, fairly and reasonably and not in a pedantic sense. The term user does not mean that the assessee should be in physical occupation of the house or any part of it. It means that the house is used by him as a residence and not with a view to make any income or profit our of it. The words residential purposes signify not merely the living of the assessee in the house but it necessary implies that the house is not used otherwise than as residence. In the instant case the assessee did not let out the house in question and it was being kept ready for use by him as residence. In such circumstances we are in agreement with the findings of the AAC that conditions of s. 7(4) findings of the WT Act are satisfied. 5. The appeals, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 58 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t is by virtue of the deeming provisions of s. 2(7) r/w ss. 161, 162(2) and 164 that assessment on the trustee of a trust for the beneficial income of the beneficiaries under the trust is made in a representative capacity by creating a legal fiction. Such a legal fiction should not be allowed to travel beyond the territories it was intended to operate in. Deeming provisions are required to be strictly construed in their application and operation as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT, West Bengal III vs. Prem Bhai Parekh and Ors. (1970) 77 ITR 27 (SC) since computation of total income necessarily requires the consideration of the claims of an assessee for certain exemptions, deductions, etc. before the levy of tax at the prescribed rates, an assessee cannot be denied such legal claims with the held of a legal fiction which too, incidentally, does not run counter to his claim in this case. 30.To sum up, we find no force in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 57 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ent of tax in relation to the same income. Such an interpretation should normally be avoided. In this case, therefore, the Tribunal appears to be right in holding that in terms of s. 215, interest could not be levied on the assessee on the tax which is deductible at source. We are of the opinion that the law declared by their Lordships of the Madras High Court in the case cited above squarely covers the point in issue before us. We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the point and direct the ITO to give credit for the amount of tax deducted at source in the computation of interest income of the assessee. We many further observe that in the notice of demand as placed before us, credit for TDS had already been given for tax purposes. In view of the discussion made above by us, such credit for TDS should also be given in the computation of interest under s. 215 of the Act. We hold accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 56 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
  

  Deduction, Interest On Securities, Dividends, Etc.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t clear that it is by virtue of the deeming provisions of section 2(7) read with sections 161, 162(2) and 164 that assessment on the trustee of a trust for the beneficial income of the beneficiaries under the trust is made in a representative capacity by creating a legal fiction. Such a legal fiction should not be allowed to travel beyond the territories it was intended to operate in. Deeming provisions are required to be strictly construed in their application and operation as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh 1970 77 ITR 27. Since computation of total income necessarily requires the consideration of the claims of an assessee for certain exemptions, deductions, etc., before the levy of taxes at the prescribed rates, an assessee cannot be denied such legal claims with the help of a legal fiction which too, incidentally, does not run counter to his claim in this case. 31. To sum up, we find no force in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 55 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
  

  Revision Of Order, Order Prejudicial To Interests Of Revenue, Capital Gains, Exemption In Certain Cases

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Contempt of Court

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ed any opinion, which can be termed as or deemed to be final and more particularly when, he has just asked the contemners to show cause and has not even formed any tentative opinion about their guilt or otherwise. We have indicated earlier that while taking recourse to such procedure and power as involved in this case, a learned Trial Judge should act with all fairness and he should not form any opinion against the contemners, without giving them any opportunity. In fact, as indicated earlier, we do not find any contrary evidence available in this case and as such, on the basis of the determinations in the case of D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal (supra), we feel that no interference should be made. 54. For the views as above and on the basis of our determinations and also for our observations on the cases as cited at the Bar, we feel that there is no merit in this appeal and as such, we direct dismissal of the same. The appeal is thus dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Prosecution - Revision against inadequate sentence - Revision - Conviction and sentence

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... deration of the evidence in the case found that there is evidence to show that the accused was guilty of the charges framed against him. It was then argued among other things that the accused had been in the preventive custody on the basis of the very same acts. As stated above, expressing inability to accept this submission, the Supreme Court set aside the Judgment of acquittal of the High Court and restored the Judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Thus the facts in the Supreme Court s case are different from the facts in our case. May be the reasons given by the Magistrate for not awarding the minimum sentence prescribed in the section are not adequate, but that cannot be a ground for interference with the sentence awarded in a revision petition even if the revision petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. 11. Thus I find no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court as regards the sentence. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 52 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Customs - Detention Certificate - Delay in issuance of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he Board failed to exercise the discretion vested in it. 32.For the reasons aforesaid, this application is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to refund of a part of the rent and demurrage charges paid by the petitioner for the period from 28th November, 1984 to 25th March, 1985, but the petitioner is not entitled to the sum of Rs. 8,43,995 as claimed in the petition. Accordingly, the respondent No. 4, the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Post and Railway Audit Section, Calcutta Port Trust, is directed to determine the amount refundable to the petitioner on the basis of the wharf rent exemption certificates issued on 25th March, 1985 and 3rd February, 1986 covering the entire period of detention of the subject goods from 28th November, 1984 to 25th march, 1985. The respondents shall, within two weeks from the date of communication of this order, refund the amount due to the petitioner to be determined in terms of this order. 33.There will be no order as to costs

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
  

  Adjudication - Demand - Natural Justice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y gave a finding is not the basis mentioned in the demand notice. No such case was made as the basis in the demand notice. On this short ground alone, the impugned orders of all the three authorities mentioned above are liable to be quashed. We, accordingly, quash the impugned order of the assessing officer dated 18-6-1987, the appellate order of the Commissioner of Excise dated 7-9-1987 and the order of the State Government dated 2-2-1988. 8. The matter is fixed only for disposal of the stay application but the learned Advocate-General has no objection if the main writ petition itself is disposed of. 9. In this situation our views are not to be expressed in this Writ Petition as to the applicability of Rules 11 and/or 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties), 1956 framed under the Act. 10. The Writ Petition is, therefore, accordingly, allowed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties should bear their own costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150/-

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Import - High speed automatic wrappers

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... convenience. 12. In the present case, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports clarified the position before the petitioners imported the machine and it was on the strength of such clarification that the machine was imported. The Collector of Customs in his order has tried to find fault with this clarification by saying that from the application of the petitioners it is not clear whether they were importing the same machine which is used for wrapping confectionery or not. No such difficulty was however felt by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. If he wanted any clarification he could have asked the petitioners. The clarification given by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports cannot, therefore, be brushed aside on such basis. 13. In the premises, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). Amount to be refunded within six weeks from today. 14. Respondents to pay the petitioner costs of the petition.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Exemption - Words and Phrases

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... . It then goes on to say that goods of this description are exempt from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty which is specified in the table forming part of the notification. There is therefore, no limitation imposed on the exemption granted with reference to the rate of duty as prescribed in the first Schedule. This is an exemption from the total duty of excise. Special duty of excise is as much a duty of excise as the basic duty. It is, therefore covered by the Exemption Notification. 10. Mr. Kantawala learned counsel for the petitioners, does not press any other points as the same have been concluded against the petitioners by reason of the decision of a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Ashok Traders v. Union of India, reported in 1987 32 E.L.T. 262 (Bom.). 11. The petition is therefore partially allowed and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) (iii). In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Customs - Rate of duty - Promissory estoppel

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... per annum until the date of this order. The petitioner has caused this delay in payment of the duties, due and payable to the Union of India and has also enjoyed the benefit by getting the goods released without payment of the duties thereon and it is fit and proper that the petitioner should be hold liable to pay such interest as aforesaid. If, however, the Customs authorities are entitled to levy any interest against the petitioner under any provisions of law for the period from the 23rd March, 1983 until today the said claim, if any, will merge with this order for payment of interest and interest will not be charged twice over. 21. The petitioner will also pay the costs of this application and/or the proceedings thereunder assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. 22. Stay asked for on behalf of the petitioner is declined. 23. All parties including the said bank and the Registrar, Original Side, will act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment on the usual undertaking.

  ---

1 ....345678910