Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 444 Records
-
1996 (2) TMI 24 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... assume that any report required by law to be appended to the return can be furnished at any time during which it is permissible to file the return beyond the due date, subject to the other provisions of the Act and the Rules such as the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 139. Under these circumstances, if the audit report is not at all filed, there would be justification to reject the claim for exemption under section 11 but if the same has been filed, even after the return has been filed but within the period permitted by law, it would be against the spirit of the Act to deny exemption. The requirement is, thus, directory and we find that the Tribunal was justified in holding that filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B with the return of income was not mandatory and it was sufficient compliance with section 12A(b), if the same was filed during the course of the assessment proceedings. Reference is, thus, answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (2) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Deduction In Respect, Discretionary Trust, Interest On Securities, Rate Applicable
-
1996 (2) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Business Income, Business Loss, Excise Duty, High Court, Plant And Machinery, Tax Liability, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1996 (2) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Voluntary Contributions ... ... ... ... ..... mith 1956 37 TC 18 (Ch D) 1957 31 ITR 511 and Maharaj Shri Govindlalji Ranchhodlalji v. CIT 1958 34 ITR 92 (Bom). So also the awards received by a non-professional sportsman is not taxable. In the present case Kanikkai and Sambhavanai were paid by the devotees to the Jeer Swamigal out of personal regard, personal esteem and veneration. The Swamiji is not exercising any profession or avocation. The voluntary offerings made by devotees though offered to the Swamiji are not for any profession or vocation in which the Swamiji indulged. Since the voluntary contributions were made as offerings to the Swamiji, it will not be considered as income under the Income-tax Act in view of the foregoing decisions cited supra. In the case of the same assessee, this court in T. C. No. 444 of 1981 by its judgment dated April 28, 1994, also came to the same conclusion. In view of the foregoing reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Levy Of Penalty, Previous Year, Reasonable Cause ... ... ... ... ..... n 140A came into force with effect from April 1, 1976. The assessee s previous year ended on April 12, 1976, and the return was filed on February 17, 1977. Therefore, the amended provisions of section 140A are applicable to the facts of this case. For the delay in payment of self-assessment tax, the assessee sent a reply before the Income-tax Officer stating that in view of the decision of this court in Sali Maricar s case 1973 90 ITR 116, no penalty under section 140A(3) is exigible. After the amended provisions came into force, the decision rendered in the case of Sali Maricar 1973 90 ITR 116 (Mad) has become no longer a good law. Further, the assessee has not given any reasonable cause for not paying the self-assessment tax in time. In the absence of any reasonable cause, it is not possible to cancel the penalty levied under section 140A(3) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 19 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... ounsel for the Revenue has submitted that no order has been passed by the Tribunal for assessing the liability of the legal representative of the deceased assessee though the Tribunal in para 4 of the order has very clearly observed In such circumstances, natural justice demands that the assessment should go back to the Income-tax Officer to give sufficient opportunity to the legal representatives of the deceased for stating their case. Therefore, the Tribunal was mindful of the fact that in such a situation, the case has to be remanded though the Tribunal has not very specifically mentioned this part presumably the Tribunal may have credited this much to the Income-tax Officer that he will initiate the action under section 159(2) of the Act. Be that as it may, if it is now possible under the law, then it is open for the Income-tax Officer to proceed according to law under section 159(2) of the Act. This reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (2) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appellate Tribunal, Review ... ... ... ... ..... was of the view was passed in contravention and/or in ignorance of statutory provisions. It is one of the basic principles and a legal policy that when there is a provision for rectification of a mistake on the record, that power should be allowed to be exercised for correcting mistakes and/or error on the record and if the Tribunal feels that the Tribunal has committed an error of law, in that event, it would be against the concept of justice and fair play and also against the principle of legal policy not to allow the Tribunal to exercise such power. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the view that the power that is sought to be exercised by the Tribunal comes within the scope and ambit of the provisions of s. 154, r/w s. 254(2) of the said Act, and accordingly we do not find that any question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal, dt. 12th Oct., 1993. The application is accordingly rejected. DIBYENDU BHUSHAN DUTTA, J. I agree.
-
1996 (2) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Allowability ... ... ... ... ..... esponsibility to maintain the replacement machines in their present condition shall be that of the lessee, who shall redeliver the same to the lessor on determination of the lease. The lessee shall reinstall the removed plant and machineries at their original place at their own cost unless otherwise mutually agreed upon. The plant, machineries and equipments so installed or erected shall be the absolute property of the lessee. The lessee shall at any and all times be fully entitled to remove such machines, plants and equipments or plants thereof an intimation in writing to the lessors. Therefore, the assessee was to pay Rs. 19,952 and the balance amount has already been written back during the asst. yr. 1967-68. As such, we allow the claim of the assessee. 6. We fully agree with the above finding of the Tribunal that the liability was not contingent in nature and hence this question is also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1996 (2) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee's share of profit that may ultimately be determined in the assessment of the firm as his share of profit from the firm is liable to be included in his total income - Amount received by the assessee as his share of the value of the goodwill or any part thereof was not liable to tax as capital gain - amount over and above Rs. 1,00,000 is also his income in law. It has accrued to him. It is immaterial that he chose not to recover it
-
1996 (2) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT
High Court was right in holding that no claim for a deduction could have been allowed merely because the appellant chose to debit his P/L A/c during its course. In fact, no payment was made by the appellant to any of the employees; this was merely an accounting entry. This entry did not represent any disbursement of money and, therefore, neither on the principles of the mercantile system nor on the basis of the cash system could the appellant validly claim this amount as a deduction.
-
1996 (2) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT
Tribunal declined to make the reference to HC - assessee then made an reference application to the High Court - assessee withdrew that application after some arguments - assessee filed writ petition before HC which was dismissed by HC on ground that assessee could have brought the correctness of the Tribunal's order on the merits in reference before the High Court through a reference application - HC was justified in dismissing writ petition.
-
1996 (2) TMI 13 - SC ORDER
Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of ₹ 34,575 representing a loss that arose to the assessee at the time of remittance of money to it was an allowable deduction u/s 57(i) - question sought to be referred is a question of law concerning the interpretation of section 57(i) and the High Court ought to have called for a reference from the Tribunal concerning it - Tribunal is directed to refer the aforequoted question to HC u/s 256(2)
-
1996 (2) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum received by the assessee from various discretionary trusts could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee u/s 166 - whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the said sum was exempt from tax inasmuch as the said sum was paid out of dividends received by the trusts, which were exempt from tax u/s 80K - first question is answered in favour of revenue and second question is remitted back to the High Court
-
1996 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the distributions received by the assessee from various discretionary trusts were assessable only in the hands of the trustees of the respective trusts under section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not in the hands of the assessee - Held, no
-
1996 (2) TMI 10 - SC ORDER
It is clear that no question of law arises out of the Tribunal's order and the only question involved is a pure question of fact regarding the genuineness of the trust. In the facts of the present case, no occasion arose for application of any principle of law at any stage for deciding this question relating to the genuineness of the trust and, therefore, there was no basis to hold that a question of law arises out of the Tribunal's order
-
1996 (2) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the amount of penalty imposable should have been worked out on the basis of the law in force at the time the return was filed and the delinquency of excluding the part of the income had been committed - Held, yes
-
1996 (2) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee-company is entitled to a deduction for a sum in respect of the contribution made by it to the Maharashtra Housing Board towards the construction of tenements for its workers - professional charges paid by the assessee-company to its solicitors for effecting the amalgamation of Nawrosjee Wadia and Pressing Company with it, was of revenue nature and should be allowed as a deduction in the computation of its total income
-
1996 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee, the transport Corporation, - assessee contended that since it is a "local authority" within the meaning of section 2(31)(vi) (definition of "person"), its income is exempt under and by virtue of clause (20) of section 10 - held that that the assessee is not a 'local authority' as contemplated by section 2(31)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
-
1996 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the amendment order made by the Income-tax Officer was not sustainable to the extent to which it purported to withdraw development rebate admissible to the assessee in respect of that part of the machinery/plant which was the subject-matter of the hiring agreement - question formulated by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Act is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue
-
1996 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Life Insurance Corporation - the sum of Rs. 29,39,959 being the refund of income-tax received by the Corporation during the inter-valuation period in respect of the income-tax up to the assessment year 1956-57 of the life insurance business of the erstwhile insurers whose business had been taken over by the Corporation, should be allowed as a deduction while computing the income of the assessee under rule 2(1)(b) of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961
....
|