Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 437 of 437 Records
-
1997 (3) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Bonus, Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ning of the assessee s business. Therefore, we are of the view that the additional amount was paid on commercial principles and commercial considerations, and is allowable under section 37 of the Act. In CIT v. Sivanandha Mills Limited 1985 156 ITR 629, this court has held that section 36(1)(ii) will apply only in the case of bonus paid under the Bonus Act, and the payments made as incentive bonus, attendance bonus or customary bonus are allowable under section 37 of the Act on the score that the expenditure was laid out wholly or exclusively for the purpose of the business. Hence, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion that the payment made in pursuance of the settlement between the assessee-company and the workers under the Industrial Disputes Act over and above the statutory bonus, is allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. We therefore answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ould be entitled to the relief provided under section 89 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This court in the case reported in CIT v. J. Visalakshi 1994 206 ITR 531, held that if an employee receives at the time of resignation, the amount could be regarded as salary and the assessee would be entitled to the relief provided under section 89 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said principle rendered by this court in the case of resignation would equally apply to the case of voluntary retirement of an employee from service. Accordingly, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount received by the employee at the time of voluntary retirement of service would be regarded as salary, and the relief under section 89 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would be admissible in respect of the amount received by the assessee from his employer at the time of voluntary retirement. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Surtax, Computation Of Capital, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... whether a portion of the capital, can be deducted under rule 4 of the Second Schedule in respect of the deduction granted to the assessee under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in computing the capital employed. In Second ITO v. Stumpp, Schuele and Somappa P. Ltd. 1991 187 ITR 108, the Supreme Court held that no portion of the capital is to be deducted under rule 4 of the Second Schedule in respect of the deduction granted under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 961, in computing the capital employed. In as much as the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the above cited decision of the Supreme Court, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 14 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e and the application filed by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and argued that after having adjusted the amount recovered from the petitioner during the raid towards the advance tax payable by the petitioner, the assessing authority could not charge interest from the petitioner by invoking section 215 of the Act. After having thoughtfully considered the rival submissions and having perused the orders passed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that no referable question of law arises in this petition. The Tribunal has rightly held that after adjusting the amount recovered from the petitioner towards the advance tax, the assessing authority could not invoke section 215 for charging interest from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Revenue could not convince us that the findings recorded by the Tribunal suffer from any error of law. Consequently, we hold that no referable question of law arises in this case. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
-
1997 (3) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT
In view of the special provision for rectification of an assessment order contained in section 155(5) the general power of rectification contained in section 154 was not applicable and that the power under section 155(5) could not be invoked in the facts of the present case because there was no transfer of plant by the assessee-firm. The appeal by revenue, therefore, fails
-
1997 (3) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT
High Court was justified in holding that the assessee who had been previously assessed, had been taken erroneously to be a "new assessee", and penal interest had been charged on the basis, that it had not submitted an estimate under section 212(3). It was a patent mistake since the assessee was not obliged to submit an estimate under section 212(3) of the Income-tax Act. The application for rectification of the assessment order was maintainable under section 154
-
1997 (3) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption in payment of income-tax under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the reason that the income of the assessee was derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes - Held, no
-
1997 (3) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
Interest paid by the firm to a partner (as kartha of HUF) in his individual capacity - assessee's claim to the benefit of clause (b) of section 40 has been wrongly disallowed
-
1997 (3) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee's claim that the first proviso to section 43B by the Finance Act, 1987 was applicable retrospectively, is accepted - sales-tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant previous, but within the time allowed, is to be allowed u/s 43B
-
1997 (3) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the buildings of the Khas Bagh Palace which were let out to different persons from whom rental income was received by the assessee were not in the occupation of the assessee within the meaning of section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and hence the value thereof was includible in the net wealth of the assessee
-
1997 (3) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Death of partner - reconstitution of firm - One of the partner is both a surviving partner and a legal representative and he signs the deed into two capacities - registration cannot be rejected on ground that firm is not genuine
-
1997 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
BOI - AOP - death of the individual - was continued by his widow on her behalf and on behalf of her minor children - held that income of business should be assessed in the status of BOI because business was in the nature of joint venture
-
1997 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of interest of Rs. 28,488 on money borrowed for payment of income-tax was not an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business as contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 37 - assessee's appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed
-
1997 (3) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Addition on account of interest in respect of the assessee's children and his wife - Assessee, MD of a company who was having deposit with the company, transfers it to the credit of the firm, in which his children are partners - Such a paper transaction intended merely to reduce the tax liability cannot be held to be a loan - addition of interest on deposit in respect of the assessee's children are justified
-
1997 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of the warrant of authorisation issued by Commissioner under section 132A(1) - There was no sufficient material with Commissioner for a reasonable belief that the sum seized represented income that would not be disclosed - hence warrant is invalid
-
1997 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sum of ₹ 2,30,000 was added by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on new sources of income or items not considered by the Income-tax Officer from the point of view of assessability - Held that Appellate Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to enhance the additions not considered by Income-tax Officer
-
1997 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Held that before considering the matter of deduction under section 80P(2), the Income-tax Officer had rightly set off the carried forward losses of the earlier years in accordance with section 72 of the Act and on finding that the said losses exceeded the income, he rightly did not allow any deduction under section 80P(2) - Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the deduction under section 80P should be allowed before set off of unabsorbed losses of earlier year
....
|