Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1994 1994 (10) This ![](/image/arrow.gif)
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 265 of 265 Records
-
1994 (10) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ioner without assigning any reason set aside the permission given by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer and directed the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to assess the assessees on the basis of their returns filed by them individually. Unless the Commissioner says for what purpose he exercised the suo motu power under section 34 of the Act, it is not permissible to sustain such an order passed by the Commissioner. Under section 65 of the Act, it is open to the assessees to ask for composition of tax and this was permitted. Without assigning any reasons, it is not open to the Commissioner to set aside the said order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Commissioner under section 34 of the Act and restore the order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer permitting the assessees for composition of tax. In that view of the matter, the revision applications are allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Backward Area, Income Tax Act, New Industrial Undertaking, Profits And Gains, Special Deduction
-
1994 (10) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... yment of tax. A plain reading of the note does not indicate any material to arrive at such a conclusion. Shri Dastur is right in submitting that the fact that the flat in dispute was in the occupation of petitioner No. 1-company right from the year 1976 was a relevant circumstance to ascertain whether the consideration mentioned in the agreement was fair or otherwise. Even assuming that the competent authority comes to a conclusion that the consideration is not truly stated in the document, still in the absence of any material, the competent authority could not have been satisfied that the consideration was not truly stated only with a view to evade the liability of tax. In our judgment, in the absence of any material, the initiation of proceedings was without jurisdiction and the petitioners are entitled to relief. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Rectification Of Mistakes
-
1994 (10) TMI 1 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... Unit Trust of India as per the directions of this court and interest is not permitted to be withdrawn by the Department as well as the owner of the premises. In the event the Appropriate Authority, after hearing the objections of the petitioners in the aforesaid four writ petitions, comes to the very same conclusion and sustains the pre-emptive orders of purchase, the consideration in the form of deposit in the Unit Trust of India shall stand transferred to the owner and she will also be entitled to withdraw the interest. In the event of the Appropriate Authority dropping the proposal to effect pre-emptive purchase, the same should be made subject to the condition that the transferees-petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 16185 and 16196 of 1991 reimburse the Income-tax Department by depositing the entire sale consideration, after issuing thirty days notice. Writ Petitions Nos. 231 of 1992 and 15382 of 1991 are accordingly closed with the above directions. No order as to costs.
....
|
|