|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 490 Records
-
2003 (4) TMI 90
Reopening of assessment – limitation - The moot question we are required to consider is the validity and legality of the notices, all dated July 29, 1994, issued by the respondent-Income-tax Department under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reopening the respective assessment under section 147 - Pursuant to an interim order passed in the writ petition, the assessment orders have since been made. Since we have quashed the notices, the assessment orders made pursuant to such notices respectively in the respective cases cannot be sustained and accordingly stand quashed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 89
Power Of Commissioner - The case of the petitioner is that waiver of interest and penalty could have been granted by such authority but it failed to grant so. - The Commissioner is empowered to consider the prayer on the merits as to whether for the ends of justice the assessee can be granted relief as regards waiver of interest and penalty or he cannot be allowed, to prevent abuse of process of law. The flavour of section 273A speaks for the same. The provision of such section cannot be said to be reviewed simplicitor nor it speaks so. It is a comprehensive section to provide justice to an assessee upon considering all aspects of the matter. The intention of the Legislature is to give maximum number of rooms to an assessee under the fiscal statute so that no question of unjust enrichment can arise. If, today, this court ignores such conduct, then it will be an act of ignoring the values of the fiscal statute which is not expected.
-
2003 (4) TMI 88
Assessment under section 144/145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - By this writ application the writ petitioner has challenged an assessment order passed - The assessing authority, therefore, acted without jurisdiction in reopening the assessment notwithstanding the fact that such right was not conferred upon him by the appellate authority. There is no dispute that the order of the appellate authority has not been impugned by the Department and as such the same has attained finality. - I, thus, set aside the order impugned on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in reassessing the matter in the absence of any direction from the appellate authority.
-
2003 (4) TMI 87
"(i) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that flat, and hotel site did not belong to the assessee within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act and hence could not be assessed, as such in his hands merely on the ground that these have not been transferred in his name particularly when the assessee had made full consideration of the value of the property but did not get it transferred intentionally/otherwise and had also subsequently declared it as an asset in his wealth-tax return for the AY 1995-96 under similar circumstances ? - (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the flat and hotel did not belong to the assessee within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, and hence could not be assessed, as such in his hands merely on the ground that these have not been transferred, in his name particularly when the assessee had made full or partial consideration of the value of the properties and the value of such consideration so made, in the alternate, is liable to be included in his net wealth?" - In our opinion, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the flat, the plot and the hotel site did not belong to the assessee are based on a correct appreciation of evidence and none of the questions framed by the appellant can be treated as a substantial question of law
-
2003 (4) TMI 86
The Revenue has filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), for determination of what it has described as substantial questions of law. - 1. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition made at Rs. 1,88,480 being un explained investment in the manufacturing process of the bricks and profits earned on the unrecorded sales thereof? - 2. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee maintained complete record of manufacturing process especially when admitted by the assessee that no books of account and other record whatsoever was maintained in respect of kiln owned under the name and style of Shiv Shakti Gram Udyog Larth? - we hold that the questions framed by the Revenue cannot be treated as substantial questions of law within the meaning of section 260A
-
2003 (4) TMI 85
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the nursing home could be run only by a qualified doctor? – Held that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the nursing home can be run only by qualified doctors - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any material to hold that the assessee was paying only rental for beds and equipments of the nursing home and in further holding that the nursing home was run by the assessee? - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that income from running the physiotherapy centre did not represent the income of Smt. Shobha Srivastava but was the income of the assessee? - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the income from operation of the x-ray machine did not belong to Shri Sanjay Srivastava but was the income of the assessee?
-
2003 (4) TMI 84
Search and seizure - "(i) Whether, Tribunal was justified in deleting the on account of business income of the assessee by holding that there was no partnership firm in existence during that year especially in view of the seized books of account which clearly reveal that the assessee was continuously doing pawning business outside its books of account right from the year 1981 to the date of search? - (ii) Whether, Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of undisclosed investment made by the assessee in the pawning business? - (iii) Whether, Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of interest earned by the assessee from pawning business for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97 by holding that no addition was called for because there was no material on record to justify the action of the Assessing Officer?" - There is no any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence made by the Tribunal or the reasons assigned by it for deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, none of the questions, of which determination has been sought by the Revenue, can be treated as a substantial question of law.
-
2003 (4) TMI 83
The notices issued under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to rectify summary assessments made under section 143(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act for the assessment years 1990-91, 1992 93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 are under challenge in this writ petition. - In so far as the submission of Mr. Saha that the petitioner should be relegated to the departmental proceedings, the straight and simple answer is that an unjustified notice is a bad notice and there is no reason why the petitioner should wait until rectification is carried out under section 154 of the Act. - For the aforesaid reasons, the notices under section 154 seeking to rectify the intimation under section 143(1)(a) for the assessment years 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 are quashed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 82
Additions – income from undisclosed sources - it is clear that no income was received by or accrued to the assessee and hence the addition in the process of the estimated price of the dust eliminated at the time of purchase is wholly arbitrary and illegal. - The appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 81
Tax collection at source – default in not collecting tax - In our opinion after the circular of the CBDT dated June 27, 2002, the controversy in this case really does not survive since under that circular the maximum retail price is treated to be the sale price as envisaged by sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of the Explanation to section 206C which has come into effect from March 16, 2001, i.e., the date on which the notification for fixing the maximum retail price of country liquor for the State of Uttar Pradesh was issued. - In Collector of Central Excise v. Dhiren Chemical Industries it has been held that the circulars of the Department are binding on the tax authorities. In paragraph 11 of that judgment the Supreme Court has said that even if the court has taken a different interpretation yet the interpretation of the Central Board in its circular shall be binding on the Revenue. Although that decision was under the Central Excise Act in our opinion it will also, apply to the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 of the Income-tax Act. - Hence in view of the circular dated June 27, 2002, this writ petition is allowed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 80
Depreciation - The Tribunal has held in the impugned order that the assessee has failed to establish hiring business, and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had allowed the claim of the assessee without satisfying the conditions thereof. - Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Tribunal omitted to consider the facts. - Tribunal has held the cylinders were not purchased for leasing business and one of the parties to whom the cylinders were leased out is the manufacturer and seller of the cylinders. To the other party cylinders were dispatched only a day before the close of the accounting period. The findings in the order of the Tribunal are finding of facts and hence we cannot interfere in this appeal.
-
2003 (4) TMI 79
Deduction of investment allowance on the CT scan machine installed and used - "(a) Whether, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction of investment allowance of ₹ 16,77,837 on the CT scan machine installed and used by the appellant during the year under consideration? - (b) Whether, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the diagnostic centre run by the appellant was not an industrial undertaking? - (c) Whether, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that generating reports from the CT scan machine did not amount to manufacture or production of article or thing?" - we answer all the above three questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
2003 (4) TMI 78
"(1) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale proceeds of Rs. 7,25,854 received by the assessee on the sale of the export licence represented capital receipt and was exempt from income-tax? - (2) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 28(iiia) were not applicable to the receipt of the aforesaid sum? - (3) If the answer to the above questions are in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the export licence had no cost of acquisition and the sale proceeds thereof were not liable to capital gains tax? - (4) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80HHC in spite of the fact that the audit report in Form No. 10CC-AC required to be filed along with return of income under sub-section (4) of section 80HHC was filed only before the Tribunal?"
-
2003 (4) TMI 77
"Whether, Tribunal has not erred in law and facts in allowing the appeal of the assessee and quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 and restoring the order of the Income-tax Officer?" - while holding that the Tribunal had committed an error in upholding the preliminary objection of the assessee against the revisional exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act in the context of the order made by the Income-tax Officer pursuant to the direction issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B(4) of the Act, we hold that the Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the appeal of the assessee and quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Act and in restoring the order of the Income-tax Officer. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
2003 (4) TMI 76
Search operation - credit sales not reflected in the books of account – sales profit - "Whether, the assessee having not included the credit sales in the books of account and in the balance-sheet, the Tribunal was justified assuming that the assessee followed different method of accounting for unrecorded sales, without any factual basis, and as such whether the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from perversity being against the settled principles of accountancy?" - The total sale cannot be regarded as the profit of the assessee. The net profit rate has to be adopted and once a net profit rate is adopted, it cannot be said that there is perversity of approach. Whether the rate is low or high, it would depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case net profit rate of five per cent. has been applied. We do not think it appropriate that the same requires to be enhanced. We are also inclined to think that it is high.
-
2003 (4) TMI 75
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - "Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that no taxable gift or deemed gift under section 4(c) of the Gift-tax Act stands proved to have been made by the company in favour of Smt. Sarabhai and thereby deleting the same?" - We, hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that no taxable gift or deemed gift under section 4(c) of the Gift-tax Act was proved to have been made by the company in favour of Smt. Giraben Sarabhai. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2003 (4) TMI 74
"(i) Whether, CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in adjudicating upon an issue which did not arise out of the order of appeal and thereby holding that the income of the assessee is exempt under section 80P of the Act? (ii) Whether, CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,74,883 made out of the secretary pay fund?" - we are satisfied that failure of the assessee to raise the plea of exemption before the Assessing Officer cannot disentitle it to the benefit of statutory exemption. Therefore, the first question raised by the Revenue cannot be treated as substantial question of law - We are further of the view that the reasons assigned by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal for deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,74,883 keeping in view the method of accounting followed by the assessee do not suffer from any legal infirmity requiring reconsideration of the issue by this court. Therefore, even the second question framed by the Revenue cannot be treated as substantial question of law
-
2003 (4) TMI 73
Quashing of notice for pre-emptive purchase under section 269UD of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was initiated against the assessee - in our view, it seems that the valuation has not been made correctly and that apart there being no attempt to evade tax and the transaction being bona fide, the provision of Chapter XX-C cannot be attracted in the present case. We agree with the judgment of the learned single judge who quashed the said notice and the proceeding
-
2003 (4) TMI 72
"Whether, Tribunal is justified in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,38,172 levied under section 271(1)(c), holding that the penalty imposed was not valid and jurisdiction to impose the same was illegally assumed without recording a proper satisfaction, whereas the Assessing Officer passed a speaking order under section 271(1)(c) establishing that the assessee had wilfully and deliberately concealed the true and correct particulars of its income, a reference to which was duly made in the assessment order by way of initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)?" - In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for cancellation of the penalty are legally correct and the order passed by it does not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law requiring determination by this court under section 260A of the Act.
-
2003 (4) TMI 71
Search and seizure - It is not a case where the search has been carried out unauthorisedly or without any material before the authorities to link the Kothari group of companies with the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that no infirmity or illegality can be found with the search of the business premises of the petitioner-company or with the seizing of the accounts and restraining the petitioner from operating its bank accounts. The action having been taken by the respondents bona fide strictly in accordance with law, no case is made out for setting aside the same.
....
|
9911796707
