|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 391 of 391 Records
-
2000 (4) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... payment of interest, as the factual position would go to show, is deviced in a novel way of redeposit of payment. Further, if the Revenue s stand is accepted, there was no payment by cash and there were mere book entries. Alternatively, section 40A(3) is pressed into service. One thing is crystal clear that if cash payment is not there, section 40A(3) will have no application. Then the question of urgent need to attract exclusions enumerated in rule 6DD has to be considered. If there is no urgent need, desirability of making payment by the prescribed modes has to be adjudicated. We are of the considered opinion that the factual aspects have not been considered by the Tribunal in the background of the relevant statutory provisions and applicable principles. This is a fit case where the Tribunal is to rehear the case on the merits and deal with the points involved afresh. We, therefore, do not answer the questions referred. The reference application is accordingly disposed of.
-
2000 (4) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... authority permitted the assessee to raise the additional ground. No substantial question of law arises. Further, the additional ground relates to the point of jurisdiction. It is an important point. Hence, the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee to raise the said ground as an additional ground. We do not see any reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Depreciation, Extra Shift Allowance, Agricultural Development Allowance
-
2000 (4) TMI 8 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... see stands concluded in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of the above and having regard to the fact that the controversy pertains to the assessment year 1983-84, we are of the opinion that no fruitful purpose will be served by calling for a statement of the case and directing the Tribunal to refer the questions of law set out above arising out of its order for our opinion. It will be in the interest of all concerned to straightaway answer the question arising out of the order of the Tribunal by dispensing with the procedural part. Accordingly, question No. 1 set out above is deemed to have been referred by the Tribunal to this court and following the decision of this court cited above, the same is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As a result, the assessee would not be entitled to investment allowance on the transformer. The Tribunal erred in allowing the same. This application is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (4) TMI 7 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Writ - Rectification Of Mistakes - In my opinion, since the petitioners have alternative, effective and efficacious remedy provided under the statute itself, they are not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this court seeking a writ to cancel the orders made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeals filed by them against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bangalore, dated December 27, 1996. Accordingly, the petitions deserve to be rejected.
-
2000 (4) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment of income escaping assessment – limitation – jurisdiction - four years prescribed under the proviso to section 147 have to be read with section 149 where the four years have been extended to seven years if the income chargeable that has escaped assessment is more than ₹ 50,000. The proviso to section 147 does not refer to the amount of escaped assessment. The only difference is that the notice under section 148, if issued within four years does not require any authority's sanction. But the Commissioner's sanction is required for notice issued after four years. The notice states that such sanction has been obtained. Therefore, the notice in reference to the petitioner's case cannot be held to be beyond the period of limitation.
-
2000 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee was of generating and of supply of electricity - In a case where compensation amount and its receipt is admitted, which is business profit under section 41(2), it is to be taxed in the previous year of its receipt - on a proper interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Tribunal erred in holding that addition of the sum of Rs. 1,29,35,557 under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the assessment year 1965-66 was not justified
-
2000 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
When the parties enter into a clear contract creating mutual rights & obligations, the parties are bound by it and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the HC under article 226 of the Constitution cannot be allowed to be utilised for enforcing an obligation in departure from the terms of the agreement - the transferee-petitioners not entitled to any relief but are at liberty to have their remedy against the transferor and seek return of the money paid by them to the transferor under the agreement
-
2000 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
On a proper construction of the scope & effect of the judgment of the Chief Judge of the Civil Court, Hyderabad, in the proceedings u/s 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, the Tribunal is correct in holding that as on the relevant valuation dates corresponding to the A.Y. 1974-75 & 1975-76 the corpus of the trust fund cannot be said to have been held in trust for charitable/religious purposes in India - assessee-trust is not entitled to exemption u/s 5(1)(i), in respect of the corpus of the trust fund
-
2000 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Loan granted to an employee who is a director or who has a substantial interest in the company without charging any interest - ITO found that the assessee, which was a company, was borrowing large sums by paying interest at 15 per cent per annum. This interest was claimed by the assessee as deductible expenditure - Tribunal is right in law in holding that non-charging of interest on the debit balance in the running account of the directors would not constitute a perquisite
-
2000 (4) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE (MADRAS)
Service Tax – Writ jurisdiction – Territorial jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... use of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court rightly held that the writ petition was entertainable by the Bombay High Court. We therefore hold that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and the learned Judge was quite justified in the view taken by him that the writ petition is not maintainable in law. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharati s case 1999 (112) E.L.T. 365 and C.D. Security Services Network Ltd. case 2000 (1) SCALE 356 . Since we have held that the writ petition is not maintainable, it is not necessary to express our opinion on merits of the case. 12. The result is we affirm the judgment of the learned single Judge impugned in the writ appeal, and dismiss the appeal. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently C.M.P. No. 2459 of 2000 is dismissed.
....
|
