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 Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 181 to 186 of 186 Records

• 1988 (6) TMI 6
  
  The High Court of Calcutta was asked to address three questions of law regarding income tax reassessment. The court ruled in favor of the assessee based on Supreme Court principles. The court declined to answer the first two questions and answered the third question in favor of the assessee. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 5
  
  Issues Involved:
  The judgment involves two main issues:
  1. Whether the Tribunal ignored relevant materials and relied on irrelevant materials in holding that the assessee had followed a regular method of accounting for certain expenses.
  2. Whether the expenses not actually incurred during the relevant year should be allowed as deductions in computing the profits and gains of the business assessable for that year.
  
  Issue 1 - Relevant Details:
  The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-III raised questions u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the method of accounting for expenses related to fire protection and stowing for the assessment year 1969-70. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenses, stating they were not referable to business expenditure. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal found that only a portion of the expenses should be allowed based on the rules and directed the Income-tax Officer to determine the reimbursable amount according to the rules.
  
  Issue 2 - Relevant Details:
  The Revenue contended that the allowed expenses did not pertain to the relevant year for assessment. The assessee argued that the actual expenditure was not disputed and the disallowance was based on reimbursement not being cent per cent. The Tribunal found that the assessee consistently followed a method of accounting for expenses and reimbursement from the Coal Board, as per the relevant rules. The Tribunal allowed the expenses to the extent determined by them, considering the systematic method followed by the assessee.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court held that the Tribunal did not rely on irrelevant material and answered the first question in the negative. Consequently, the second question did not require an answer. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to allow the expenses based on the systematic method followed by the assessee. The judgment concluded that the expenses should be allowed as deductions in computing the profits and gains of the business for the assessment year in question.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 4
  
  The High Court of Calcutta ruled on the interpretation of Income-tax Act provisions regarding set off of brought forward losses and deduction of unabsorbed depreciation. The court decided in favor of the Revenue on both questions referred. The decision was in line with a previous case law. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 3
  
  Issues:
  - Whether the suit for specific performance based on an oral contract of sale can be maintained.
  - Whether the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 applies to the case.
  - Whether the appellant, as a third party claiming rights under a contract of sale, is affected by the Ordinance.
  - Whether the transaction in question is a benami transaction.
  - Whether the real owner of the property can be determined in this case.
  
  Analysis:
  The appellant filed a suit for specific performance based on an oral contract of sale, claiming that certain defendants were benamidars for the real owner of the property. The trial court held that the transaction was not benami and refused specific performance, granting only a refund of earnest money. The appellant argued that the Benami Transactions Ordinance does not apply to their case as a third party claiming rights under a contract of sale. The Ordinance prohibits suits to enforce rights in respect of benami property against the person in whose name it is held. The court analyzed the legislative intent of the Ordinance to prohibit recovery of benami property and determined that the suit for specific performance was barred under the Ordinance.
  
  The court referred to the definition of "benami" and emphasized the need to establish the real owner of the property in cases of dispute. The burden of proof lies on the appellant to show that the transaction is benami and that the real owner is different from the defendants. The court highlighted that the saving clauses of the Ordinance do not apply to this case, as they pertain to coparceners in a Hindu undivided family or trustees, which are not relevant here. The court concluded that the suit for specific performance could not be maintained due to the operation of the Ordinance, and upheld the trial court's decision to grant a refund of earnest money.
  
  While confirming the decree for refund, the court directed each party to bear its own costs. The judgment clarified that the appellant cannot pursue specific performance under the Ordinance, and the real owner of the property must be determined before such relief can be granted. The court's decision was based on the application of the Ordinance and the absence of evidence establishing the transaction as benami.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 2
  
  Issues:
  1. Allegations of tax evasion against accused-petitioners and their company.
  2. Appeal process and decisions by various tax authorities.
  3. Cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and issuance of non-bailable warrants.
  4. Contention for anticipatory bail by accused-petitioners.
  5. Arguments against granting anticipatory bail by the Department.
  6. Legal precedents and judgments cited by both sides.
  7. Jurisdictional aspects and filing of bail application.
  8. Comparison with a similar case and the decision taken.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment pertains to allegations of tax evasion against the accused-petitioners and their company, leading to a complaint filed under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner added certain amounts to the taxable income, which was initially allowed as deductions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but later overturned by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The accused-petitioners were alleged to have committed these offences with the intent to evade tax.
  
  Cognizance of the offences was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who issued non-bailable warrants against the accused-petitioners. Subsequently, the accused-petitioners filed petitions seeking anticipatory bail. The defense argued that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not final due to pending rectification and reference applications, and contended that the accused had not concealed any facts during the assessment. They also claimed that their arrest was unnecessary as they were not needed for investigation or to prevent influence on witnesses.
  
  The Department opposed the anticipatory bail, citing that the accused had not approached the Sessions Judge before filing the application and referenced previous cases where bail was not granted in economic offences. They argued that the accused should not be released on bail due to the nature of the offences and the possibility of influencing the case.
  
  The judgment referenced legal precedents to establish that the pendency of tax assessment proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution. It also highlighted that the High Court has the power to grant anticipatory bail in cases involving economic offences, as seen in previous judgments. The court dismissed the contention that the bail application should have been filed before a specific bench, clarifying the jurisdictional aspect.
  
  Drawing parallels with a similar case, the court directed the accused-petitioners to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and notify their surrender date in advance to the Department. The warrants of arrest were stayed until the surrender date, and the bail applications were disposed of without delving into the case's merits.

  ---

• 1988 (6) TMI 1
  
  Issues:
  1. Quashing of notice treating petitioner as legal representative of Hindu undivided family.
  2. Interpretation of provisions regarding assessment of tax on deceased person.
  3. Applicability of section 24 of Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act.
  4. Comparison with decision of Madras High Court in Seethammal v. CIT.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The petitioner sought to quash a notice issued by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer treating him as the legal representative of the Hindu undivided family and directing him to file a return of income for the assessment year 1980-81. The petitioner argued that after the death of the head of the family, the Hindu undivided family ceased to exist, and therefore, he should not be considered a legal representative liable to file returns for the family. The respondent issued the notice based on the belief that the petitioner, as one of the representatives of the deceased, should file the return. The petitioner contended that since the Hindu undivided family was no longer in existence, there was no provision in the Act for him or his widow to file the return as karta of the family.
  
  The court analyzed the provisions of section 24 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, which deal with the assessment of tax on a deceased person payable by their representative. The court noted that section 24 applies to a natural person who dies during an assessment year, and their legal representatives become liable to file returns for income derived during the deceased's lifetime. The court held that this principle could not be extended to the current situation where the Hindu undivided family had ceased to exist. The court cited the decision of the Madras High Court in Seethammal v. CIT, which emphasized that a family signifies a group, and a single person cannot constitute a family. Assessment in the status of a Hindu undivided family requires two or more members, and if the family ceases to exist, there is no legal fiction to maintain its assessment.
  
  Based on the analysis of the legal provisions and the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice issued by the respondent under section 18 read with rule 24 of the Act. The court held that since the Hindu undivided family no longer existed, the petitioner could not be considered a legal representative for filing returns on behalf of the family. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the case.

  ---

1 ....678910