Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1987 1987 (11) 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 261 to 273 of 273 Records

• 1987 (11) TMI 13
  
  Issues Involved: Interpretation of Income-tax Act provisions regarding deductions under sections 36(1)(viii) and 40A(5) and applicability of Board instructions.
  
  Question 1: The issue was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not applying later instructions of the Board u/s 1275 in F. No. 204/72/75-11A. 11 dated 13-8-1970 for assessment made after receipt of such instructions. The Tribunal had relied on the Board's instructions in force during the relevant period.
  
  Question 2: The controversy was about the correct interpretation of section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the timing of applying deductions. The Tribunal held that total income should be computed before giving any deduction under this section, while the Revenue argued for calculating total income after giving all deductions including this section.
  
  Question 3: The issue was whether cash allowances should be included for disallowance of perquisites u/s 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This question was answered in the affirmative following a previous decision of the court.
  
  Question 4: The question was whether certain allowances and payments exceeding 20% of salary and dearness allowance were disallowable u/s 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act. This issue was also answered in the affirmative based on a prior court decision.
  
  The judgment analyzed the provisions of section 36(1)(viii) and the definition of "total income" in section 2(45) of the Act. It discussed the conflicting interpretations regarding the calculation of deductions and emphasized the importance of following the relevant circulars issued by the Board. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the timing of deductions and the applicability of Board instructions. Additionally, questions 3 and 4 were resolved in favor of the assessee based on precedents set by previous court decisions.
  
  The reference was answered accordingly, and no costs were awarded in the case.

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 12
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh directed the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the treatment of Central tax collected by a partnership firm to the court for its opinion. The firm's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The firm sought a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, which was rejected by the Tribunal.

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 11
  
  The assessee filed a petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for referring questions of law related to agricultural income deduction and depreciation. The petition was rejected as a similar case was decided against the assessee in a previous ruling. Costs of Rs. 250 were imposed. [Case: CIT v. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. 1983]

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 10
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether bad debts and depreciation constitute 'expenditure' or only notional outgoings?
  2. Whether bad debts and depreciation are qualified for weighted deduction under section 35C(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act?
  3. Whether the shortfall towards contribution to pension fund is allowable in full for the assessment year 1973-74?
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1 & 2:
  The controversy revolves around whether bad debts and depreciation qualify as expenditure under section 35C(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, allowing for weighted deduction. Initially, the Income-tax Officer permitted the deduction claimed by the assessee for both financial years. However, upon reassessment, the deductions were reduced by 20% above actual expenses, contending that bad debts and depreciation were not cash expenditures but notional losses. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that bad debts and depreciation do constitute expenditure under section 35C and are eligible for weighted deduction. The section provides for a weighted deduction of 120% of the actual expenditure incurred for providing goods or services to agriculturists. The use of vehicles and machinery directly connected to services provided qualifies as expenditure under the section. Previous judgments have upheld that depreciation on machinery used for providing services constitutes expenditure under section 35C. As for bad debts, although no direct case was cited, the nature of the debt arising from providing goods on credit aligns with the section's objectives. The deduction under section 35C precludes claiming it under any other provision of the Act, emphasizing the equivalence of expenditure and deduction in this context. Therefore, both bad debts and depreciation are deemed as expenditure and qualify for weighted deduction under section 35C(1)(b).
  
  Issue 3:
  Regarding the shortfall towards contribution to the pension fund for the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee rectified a previous error in calculating the contribution amount, resulting in a payment of Rs. 1,75,434 towards arrears. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the deduction, citing a lack of a definite basis for the payment. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, recognizing the payment as a contribution on a definite basis as per the staff pension scheme. The payment was a result of a mistaken short-payment in previous years and aligned with the prescribed limits and conditions under section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction for this payment. The Tribunal's decision in this regard was upheld, affirming that the payment qualifies as a contribution on a definite basis and is deductible under section 36(1)(iv) of the Act.
  
  In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues, affirming that bad debts, depreciation, and the shortfall towards the pension fund contribution constitute expenditure and are eligible for the respective deductions under the Income-tax Act.

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 9
  
  The High Court of Karnataka allowed the civil petition filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer questions regarding investment allowance, depreciation, compensation, and interest for the court's opinion. The Tribunal was instructed to draw up a statement of case for questions (1), (2), (3), and (5) only.

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 8
  
  The High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeal by the State regarding the attachment notice issued to the widow of Subramanya Bhat for arrears of agricultural income tax. The court held that the properties assigned to Subramanya Bhat could not be proceeded against as conditions under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act were not satisfied. The appeal was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 7
  
  The High Court quashed the summoning order in a case related to income tax, citing deficiencies in authorization and procedural irregularities in the trial court's order. The court directed the trial court to pass a new order in accordance with the law.

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 6
  
  The High Court of Kerala ruled in favor of the Revenue in a case involving the assessment of a group of 33 individuals as a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1969-70. The decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling and overruled a previous decision of the Kerala High Court. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 5
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Interpretation of Section 80RRA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Determination of whether the respondent's status was that of an "employee" or a "consultant."
  3. Eligibility for tax deduction under Section 80RRA for remuneration received in foreign currency.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Interpretation of Section 80RRA of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  
  The core issue in this appeal revolves around the interpretation of Section 80RRA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The section provides for a deduction from the gross total income of an individual who is a citizen of India, for any remuneration received in foreign currency from any employer for services rendered outside India. The deduction is fifty percent of such remuneration, subject to certain conditions, including the approval of the terms and conditions of service by the Central Government. The section aims to encourage the earning of foreign exchange by Indian nationals and to improve their status abroad.
  
  2. Determination of whether the respondent's status was that of an "employee" or a "consultant":
  
  The Government of India denied approval under Section 80RRA, asserting that the respondent was a "consultant" and not an "employee." The High Court, however, quashed this decision, directing the Government to reconsider the application. The Supreme Court examined whether the remuneration received by the respondent from the Thai company constituted remuneration from an "employer" for services rendered outside India. The Court found that the terms "employee" and "employer" in Section 80RRA are broad enough to include a consultant or a technician. The Court noted that the section does not restrict the term "remuneration" to "salary" alone, thereby encompassing fees received by a consultant or a technician.
  
  3. Eligibility for tax deduction under Section 80RRA for remuneration received in foreign currency:
  
  The Supreme Court held that the respondent's remuneration, received in foreign currency from the Thai company for services rendered outside India, qualifies for the deduction under Section 80RRA. The Court emphasized that the section's objective is to encourage Indian nationals to earn and bring foreign currency to India, and to enhance the marketability of Indian technicians abroad. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the section should only apply to salaried employees, noting that the literal meaning of "remuneration" includes fees paid to consultants or technicians. The Court concluded that there is no rationale for distinguishing between salary and other forms of remuneration for the purposes of the deduction under Section 80RRA.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the respondent is entitled to the deduction under Section 80RRA. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The judgment clarifies that the scope of Section 80RRA includes remuneration received by consultants or technicians, not just salaried employees, provided the terms and conditions of their service are approved by the Central Government.

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 4
  

  Cash Credits - Income from Undisclosed Sources - Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that for the period covered by the old constitution, the income was assessable in the hands of the assessee as a registered firm - Whether there was any dissolution of the partnership on the date of death of Shri Sarabhai Chimanlal and that, therefore, there should be separate assessment till the date of his death - Whether the provisions of section 187(2) apply to the facts of the case

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 3
  
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Ahmedabad, against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in favor of the assessee. The court found it unnecessary to consider the points raised as the judgment under appeal had been previously approved by the court in a similar case. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs. (Case Citation: 1987 (11) TMI 3 - SC Order)

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 2
  

  Whether an order of an Income-tax Officer merges in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner even in respect of those points decided by the Income tax Officer which are not the subject matter of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner

  ---

• 1987 (11) TMI 1
  

  Assessee is a Hindu undivided family - controversy in these appeals pertains to the allowance of and deduction for " repairs " in respect of house property at Delhi leased out to the Chinese Embassy under a deed of lease - Whether, the provisions of section 24(1)(i)(b) were applicable - assessee's appeal is dismissed

  ---

1 ....1011121314