|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 467 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 67 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer disallowed exemption to the assessee under section 11 of the Act on the solitary ground that the audit report under section 12A(b) of the Act was not furnished along with the return - Tribunal also made the following observations: "Even if the audit report is not taken into consideration, then in that case also it is not a case of addition, as undisputedly the corpus donations during the year were to the tune of Rs. 4,03,243.30, against which the assessee had incurred expenditure during the year at Rs. 5,01,263, which clearly establishes that expenses were more than the corpus fund received as donation during the year. I have also seen the order of the immediately preceding year, i.e., assessment year 1989-90, and found that the Assessing Officer himself allowed the exemption under section 11 to the assessee by observing that all the conditions are fulfilled by the assessee. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances and in view of the reasoning given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - The aforenoted findings are pure findings of fact and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises
-
2002 (7) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"1. Whether having regard to provisions of rule 103 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company is eligible for deduction of gratuity of Rs. 3,41,202 as admissible under section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - 2. Whether, having regard to provisions of rule 103 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal's interpretation that the last drawn salary could also be construed to be salary during the year is sustainable in law?" - The short point that arises for consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction of gratuity amount of Rs. 3,41,203 paid to an approved gratuity fund as a contribution made to the fund. - we hold that the actual payment made to the gratuity fund is allowable as business expenditure and the Tribunal was right in holding that it should be allowed as a business expenditure. Though the question referred to us raises the question regarding allowability under section 36(1)(v) of the Act, we hold that the entire amount would be allowable either under section 36(l)(v) or under section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the first question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the answer to the first question, it is unnecessary to answer the second question
-
2002 (7) TMI 65 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Penalty - Concealment Of Income - Having perused the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, we find that on both the main issues, namely, (1) whether rental income was to be assessed as business income, and (2) whether profit on sale of flat was to be assessed as income from business or as capital gains, the authorities below have accepted the explanation of the assessee as bona fide. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has in fact recorded that the assessee has not concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. In our view, these are pure findings of fact, beyond the limited and restricted scope of appeal under section 260A of the Act.
-
2002 (7) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT
During the course of assessment proceedings for the relevant assessment year the Assessing Officer, invoking a proviso to section 145(1) of the Act, rejected the books of account maintained by the assessee and estimated the turnover of the assessee-firm at Rs. 40 lakhs as against Rs. 38,76,081 declared by the assessee. Applying a gross profit rate of 13.36 per cent, the rate declared by the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment year, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,45,180, as extra profits, to the declared income of the asses see. - in the instant case, non-maintenance of stock register, coupled with the fact that unaccounted sales were detected during the course of search, in our opinion, is a relevant factor to sustain the view of the Assessing Officer. We do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal that the disclosures/surrender of Rs. 5 lakhs by the assessee at the time of search, as its unaccounted sales, constitutes sufficient material for the Assessing Officer to base his satisfaction that the books of account of the assessee are not correct and complete. In so far as the estimation of the sales/ gross profit rate is concerned, it being a best judgment assessment, based on past years results cannot be said to be arbitrary.
-
2002 (7) TMI 63 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for purpose of arriving at the capital employed in various units, the liabilities of head office mainly sales tax loan and fixed deposits should be deducted? - 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission is a part of remuneration and confirming the disallowance under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act of Rs. 48,000 paid to general manager of the company?"
-
2002 (7) TMI 62 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Voluntary Disclosure Of Income - Immunity - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the cash credits of Rs. 19,692 in the account of Smt. Amrit Kaur in the books of the assessee for this year stood satisfactorily explained by the assessee in view of the disclosure made by Amrit Kaur under section 24(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965?" - the question referred has to be answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We answer the question accordingly.
-
2002 (7) TMI 61 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Adventure In The Nature Of Trade, Appeal To High Court - construction of shops and the flats - From the portion of the order of the Tribunal it is evident that while coming to the aforenoted conclusion, the Tribunal has approached the question in the right perspective and has taken into consideration all the relevant circumstances. Having applied the correct principles, the finding that the transaction in question was not an adventure in the nature of trade is purely one of fact. We do not find any perversity in the order warranting interference by this court. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises from the order of the Tribunal.
-
2002 (7) TMI 60 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing investment allowance on ultrasound medical diagnostic electrical equipment, air-conditioner and servo voltage stabilizer?" - we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (7) TMI 59 - DELHI HIGH COURT
The Assessing Officer had disallowed exemption to the assessee-trust under section 11 of the Act mainly on the ground that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the donations received by it from various persons, inasmuch as the donors were not produced for examination. - While allowing the assessee's appeal against the said order by the Assessing Officer and directing the Assessing Officer to grant exemption to the assessee under section 11 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has dealt with all the subject donations and has recorded a categorical finding that all the relevant details, including the addresses of the donors were furnished to the Assessing Officer. In fact, the Commissioner has also recorded that the details of the cheques issued by the donors towards the corpus along with permanent account numbers were furnished but for the reasons best known to the Assessing Officer these facts were not taken note of in the assessment order. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has upheld these findings recorded by the Tribunal.
-
2002 (7) TMI 58 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs received as advance sale consideration in terms of the agreement dated September 22, 1986, as debt owed in computing the net wealth under section 40(2) of the Finance Act, 1983?" - On the basis of the undisputed facts and the circumstances of the case and on a plain reading of the relevant provisions of law, namely, section 40(2) of the Finance Act, 1983, and also the provisions under section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, I think the learned Tribunal did not go wrong in law and the conclusion of the learned Tribunal should also be accepted. The only question referred to us in this reference, is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (7) TMI 57 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Firm, Exemption From Tax On Capital Gains - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gains from the sale by the assessee of the residential house would be exempt under section 54 of the Income-tax Act and setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act ?" - The next question is whether within two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place the property was used by the assessee or a parent of his mainly for the purposes of his own or the parent's own residence. - we answer the common question of law referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue
-
2002 (7) TMI 56 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Trade Union - Exemption - "(ii) Whether the income of the excess of receipts over expenditure of the appellant-union was not exempt under section 10(24) of the Income-tax Act, particularly when the appellant-union was duly registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926? - (iii) Whether, appellant-union, a union of truck owners was not a union of workers within the meaning of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (primarily formed with the view to regulate the relations between its members and the employers, namely, the transporters), was not entitled to claim exemption of income as provided under section 10(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - (iv) Whetherthe learned authorities below were justified in holding that the Assessing Officer has rightly issued notice under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act particularly when the limitation for issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act had not expired? - (v) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the appellant-union was not exempted on the principles of mutuality in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Chelmsford Club v. CIT and CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd.?"
-
2002 (7) TMI 55 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(a) could be levied against the registered firm for delay in filing the return when the advance tax paid by the firm exceeded the assessed tax pay able by the firm and the assessment resulted in refund?" we are of the view that the Tribunal was not right in confirming the view in deleting the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (7) TMI 54 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
"Whether, Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of bad debt amounting to Rs. 44,38,276? - Whether, Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no collusive agreement between the assessee-firm and the debtor company?" - "It is obvious from the facts narrated above that the transaction was not in the nature of investment. The agreement itself mentions that the debtor company had taken a loan from the assessee." It is further noted by the Tribunal that the interest accrued out of the said loan was added in the previous year as part of the income of the assessee. It is, thus, seen that the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is purely a finding of fact as to the admissibility of the claim of bad debt, No question of law, therefore, arises in the matter requiring determination by this court.
-
2002 (7) TMI 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with a direction to him to reconsider the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on merits? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the assessee's plea for giving a fresh opportunity to argue its case on merits before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) especially when it neither filed a regular appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or even cross-objection against the Departmental appeal?" - both the questions referred at the instance of the Revenue are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee
-
2002 (7) TMI 52 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, from the interest of the assessee in the immovable property held by the firm? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration is not validly reopened under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?" - we answer question No. 1 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and question No. 2 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Income - Deemed Profits - Remission Of Liability - Value Of Benefit Or Perquisite - Discontinunance Of Business – Succession - "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the amount of sales tax refund received by the assessee-firm was not to be included in the total income of the assessee under the provisions of section 41(1) nor the provisions of sections 176(3A), 170(1)(b) and 28(iv) are attracted?" - We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 50 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Order Prejudicial To Interests Of Revenue - "1. Whether, Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - 2. Whether the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal in setting aside the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is even otherwise sustainable in law?" - it is the finding of fact given by the Tribunal that the assessee has produced relevant material and offered explanations in pursuance of the notices issued under section 142(1) as well as section 143(2) of the Act and after considering the materials and explanation, the Income-tax Officer has come to a definite conclusion. The Commissioner of Income-tax did not agree with the conclusion reached by the Income-tax Officer. Section 263 of the Act does not empower him to take action on these facts to arrive at the conclusion that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Since the material was there on record and the said material was considered by the Income-tax Officer and a particular view was taken, the mere fact that a different view can be taken, should not be the basis for an action under section 263 of the Act and it cannot be held to be justified.
-
2002 (7) TMI 49 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to pass an order under section 263 in view of the Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., although the point involved was not the subject-matter of appeal?" - In the present case, admittedly, the items relating to bad debts and deduction under section 80HHC of the Act were not the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax was wholly within his jurisdiction to consider the same and give appropriate directions in that regard as has been done in the above case. - The question referred to us is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 48 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
"Whether the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - we are of the view that there is nothing in the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly section 263 of the Act, or in the aforesaid pronouncement of the apex court which would require us to accept the narrow view which appealed to the Tribunal that the record must be of the assessee concerned and that the Commissioner had no power, jurisdiction and authority to take action under section 263 of the Act, in the case of the assessee on the basis of the records in the cases of other persons. - Our answer to the question is, accordingly, in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
....
|
