Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1991 1991 (2) 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 341 to 354 of 354 Records

• 1991 (2) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Wealth-tax Officer, in this case, without giving any opportunity to the assessee, estimated the valuation, the assessment suffered from infirmity and, accordingly, it was the duty of the Tribunal to refer the matter to the Wealth-tax Officer with a direction to complete the assessment afresh which, in fact, has been done. We, however, express our grave disapproval of the manner in which the Assessing Officer sat over the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax and completed the assessment just before the period of limitation was to expire. We are, therefore, of the view that, in this case, the principle of natural justice having been violated, the Assessing Officer should be directed to act in conformity with the direction of The Commissioner of Wealth-tax as well as the direction given by the Tribunal in its appellate order. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the negative. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 13 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Deduction, Income From Property

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ry business for the firm to carry it on therefore, it cannot be said that the tax liability did not go into the making of the consideration it must have been part of the consideration in the formation of the firm s capital for business. The partners of the new firm cannot be permitted to feign ignorance of such a statutory liability. If, for any reason, the said liability is to be held as the liability of Ananthasivan or of the old firm, then again, the assessee herein cannot claim it as a revenue expenditure by discharging the liability fastened statutorily, on the business assets, since the said act of payment was in the assessee s capacity as an occupier of the premises and not in its capacity as a trader. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the assessee is not entitled to claim the deduction in question as a business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. The question referred to us is, accordingly, answered in the negative and against the assessee.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 12 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Actual Cost, Depreciation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... not be deducted from the actual cost of the assets for purposes of calculating depreciation ? The question is directly covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Godavari Plywoods Ltd. 1987 168 ITR 632. Therefore, this income-tax case is dismissed.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 11 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Article 14 Of The Constitution, Partners, Profession Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... understood and not a firm. In view of our conclusion on the first question it is not necessary to examine the contention based on article 304(b) of the Constitution. For the reasons stated above, the amendment brought about by substituting entry No. 20 by the Karnataka Act 15 of 1989, is declared as unconstitutional, being violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, we make the following order (1) It is declared that entry No. 20 in Schedule to the Karnataka Act 35 of 1976, as introduced by the Karnataka Act 15 of 1989, violates article 14 of the Constitution and hence is invalid and unenforceable. (2) Respondents are restrained from enforcing the said provision. (3) The tax collected, if any, from the petitioners under the said invalid provision be refunded to the respective petitioners unless the same can be adjusted towards any other liabilities of the petitioners under the Act. Writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. Rule made absolute. No costs.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  S.69-A, Unexplained Money Or Article

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ue, has no application to the instant case. The assessee in that case in whose possession the wristwatch was found could not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption of ownership. But, in the instant case before us, the assessee produced evidence to substantiate that the article which was found in his possession really belonged to the Chogyal. In fact the necessary documents being the invoice and the letter dated May 30, 1973, issued by the Chogyal of Sikkim were produced by the assessee, but some documents were not considered in their proper perspective. In view of the aforesaid it appears to us that the Tribunal fell into error in holding the assessee the owner only on the basis of possession of the articles and holding him liable by adding Rs. 80,000 being the value of the said articles to his income. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. AJIT K. SENGUPTA J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Gift, Gift Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... l, no liquidity of investment nor any certainty of income appreciation of principal and interest is uncertain lands are not easily transferable danger of effacement of the rights of absentee landlords and creation of rights in tillers of soil. None of these factors are present in this case. Here the return was certain as the assessee was getting an annual rent of more than Rs. 55,000. It may be pointed out that the Gift-tax Officer has taken one-sixth share of the assessee in the rental income of the property a Rs. 50,000 as against Rs. 55,378 actually received by the assessee. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the assessee. We, therefore, answer both the questions in the reference in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In view of this judgment, the application under section 26(3) of the Act will stand rejected. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. -I agree.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Exemptions, Residential House Property, Securities, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r section 33, no estate duty is payable in respect of several kinds of properties belonging to the deceased enumerated therein. One of such properties is one house or part thereof exclusively used by the deceased for his residence to the extent specified in clause (n) of section 33(1). Life interest in the residential house was treated as an asset belonging to the assessee. In our view, there is no reason for different treatment of such interest for wealth-tax, the provisions of the two Acts, the Wealth-tax Act and the Estate Duty Act, in the matter, being in pari materia. In fiscal statutes, unless the context otherwise warrants, the same expression should be assigned same meaning occurring in different enactments where the colour, content and context of such statutes are the same or similar. Following the aforesaid decisions, we answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no on order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. - I agree.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Reference, Tribunal

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s not consideration. The only consideration is that the Tribunal was bound statutorily to dispose of the matter in strict conformity with the judgment of the High Court. The Tribunal has not done so. In any event, the first impugned order has directed the Income-tax Officer to recompute the alleged profits on the basis of a notional income, i.e., the Tribunal had in fact without considering the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s conclusion at all in terms of the judgment of the High Court negatived the same. The first impugned order is, therefore, quashed. The second impugned order which is consequent upon the first impugned order, is, therefore, also set aside. The Tribunal will be at liberty to dispose of the matter strictly in conformity with the judgment of this High Court dated September 1, 1981/September 3, 1981 United Commercial Bank v. CIT 1982 137 ITR 434, on a reference under section 256(1). Accordingly, the rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Voluntary Disclosure, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... lth-tax Officer would be at liberty to complete the assessment in the normal course, and in such an event the Wealth-tax Officer would also be at liberty to initiate proceedings or launch prosecution if the facts so warrant. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, however, realising his difficulty, has fairly conceded that the assessee is bound by her declaration and even if revaluation is made, in terms of the direction of the Tribunal, the assessee would not be entitled to get any refund. As indicated the net wealth or value of assets declared by the assessee in the declaration under the scheme will bind her and there is no scope for further consideration, as the net wealth or value so declared shall not be taken into account for the proceeding relating to imposition of penalty on the person making such declaration. For the foregoing reasons, the question in this reference is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 5 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Charitable Purpose, Precedents

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ailed to apply for registration under section 12A of the Act and also had failed to file an application in Form No. 10 asking for accumulation. The records produced before us at pages 42 to 46 of the paper book show that this is not a correct statement. Anyhow, it is for the fact-finding authority to adjudicate the issue after proper notice and hearing of the assessee and the Revenue. We hold that the way in which the Appellate Tribunal has disposed of the matter is far from satisfactory. While we decline to answer question No. 2 referred to us for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 we direct the Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeals for these two years to file and dispose of the appeals in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained herein. The income-tax referred cases are disposed of accordingly. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Partner In Firm, Wealth Tax Act

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 08 has held that section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, specifically lays down that the value of a share in the interest of a firm is to be determined in the prescribed manner and rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, prescribes such manner. Section 7(2) of the Act and rules 2A to 2G of the Rules cannot be extended to cover cases specifically governed by section 4(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act and rule 2. Hence, in determining the value of the interest of an assessee in a firm, the provisions of sections 4(1)(b) and 7(1) read with rule 2 are applicable. In our view, the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal for disposal afresh in accordance with the principle laid down by this court in that decision. We, therefore, decline to answer this question and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for disposal afresh in the light of the principles laid down in the said judgment and in accordance with the law. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J. --I agree.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Article 14 Of The Constitution, Legislative Competence

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the equal protection clause enshrined in article 14. We fail to see any such defect in the impugned provision. Accordingly, it must be held that the impugned sub-section does not in any manner violate the guarantee enshrined in article 14. III. Argument based on article 19(1)(g).--The argument of learned counsel that the impugned sub-section is violative of article 19(1)(g) is without force. The restriction contained in the impugned sub-section is in the interest of the general public and is saved by clause (6) of article 19. It is not suggested that the restriction is disproportionate or excessive. We have set out the objective of the sub-section at more than one place hereinbefore. We need not repeat it again. IV. Attack based on article 19(1)(c).--The argument based on article 19(1)(c) was not pressed before us, though it was raised as one of the contentions at the inception of the arguments. Conclusion.--For the above reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Penalty - section 271(1)(a) - assessee under a belief that income is below the taxable limits - sine there is no any mens rea, penalty was rightly set aside by tribunal

  ---

• 1991 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  ITO not considered HC decision available at time of original assessment - Validity of reassessment u/s 147 - Whether Tribunal is right in law in sustaining the assessment of the sum of $ 101,248 after having found that the departmental officers are bound by the circular of the Central Board of Revenue - in case of dissolution whether stock in trade is to be valued at market value - assessee's appeal is dismissed

  ---

1 ....1415161718