|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 490 Records
-
2003 (4) TMI 70
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case prevalent in the assessment year 1991-92, the Tribunal was right in holding that the method of valuation of closing stock followed by the assessee was justified?" - Once a recognised method of accountancy has been taken recourse to and the method has been adopted and the same has been computed on the basis of average, in our considered opinion, no question of law arises for calling for the statement of the case from the Tribunal.
-
2003 (4) TMI 69
"Whether Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) taking the view that the medical expenditure amounting to Rs. 5,20,230 reimbursed to the assessee being in the employment of National Engineering Industries Ltd., Jaipur, was not treatable as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee under section 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed error in not considering the reimbursement of Rs. 5,20,230 as perquisite in the light of the circular referred to above. - In the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2003 (4) TMI 68
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - deemed gift - There is a transfer of the membership by the appellant and his membership has been transferred at the consideration of Rs. 50,000. When a valuable right or any interest in the property, which has some value in terms of money, if that right has been transferred for the consideration less than its market value, that attracts the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Gift-tax Act. 50 far as the market value is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the market value of the membership, which has been finally taken by the Tribunal. - no case is made out for admission of the appeal.
-
2003 (4) TMI 67
"(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal erred in holding that an amount of Rs. 2,63,816 claimed by the assessee by way of deduction on account of business loss was not allowable? - (ii) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee had not proved the factum of embezzlement?" - we answer both the above questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
2003 (4) TMI 66
"(i) Whether, Tribunal was justified in holding that the share income derived by the minor, Shri T. Surya Baparao, by reason of his admission to the benefits of partnership should be regarded as share income of the HUF represented by the minor? - (ii) Whether, Tribunal was justified in holding that the share income derived by the minor, Shri T. Surya Baparao by reason of his admission to the benefits of partnership was not his individual income and hence the provisions of section 64(1)(iii) did not apply? - (iii) Whether, Tribunal was justified in holding that the minor, Shri T. Surya Baparao who under the Partnership Act could not at all become a partner but only be admitted to the benefits of partnership could represent his Hindu undivided family in a firm?" - We answer all the questions referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2003 (4) TMI 65
Assessee is a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He received incentive bonus from his employer and on the said sum he claimed 40 per cent. deduction in his return filed for the assessment year 1994-95. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction of the amount on the incentive bonus received by the assessee as it formed a part of salary and, hence, no such deduction was allowable - It is manifest that when a deduction is claimed and it is some what controversial it cannot be treated to be prima facie disallowable. If the claim is made by the assessee is treated not to be free from debate and argument it is bound to be regarded as a debatable issue.
-
2003 (4) TMI 64
Rectification within the meaning of section 154 - petitioners have prayed for cancellation of orders allowing an application under section 154 thereby withdrawing the waiver of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which was earlier allowed by the original order under section 245D(4) of the Act. By the orders impugned, direction for charging interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act has been given. - I thus set aside the orders impugned
-
2003 (4) TMI 63
Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS) - This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned notice u/s 144A for proceeding under section 158BD, read with section 158BC. - refund of seized amount. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus restraining the respondents from proceeding with block assessment under section 158BC. - The petitioner had a valid certificate granted to him by the Commissioner of Income tax, Meerut, under section 68(2) of the Voluntary Disclosure' of Income Scheme, 1997, and hence the impugned proceedings under section 158BD in pursuance of notice dated October 29, 2001, and December 12, 2001, are illegal and are hereby quashed. The amount seized from the petitioner shall be re funded to the petitioner along with interest at 12 per cent. per annum from the date of seizure to the date of refund
-
2003 (4) TMI 62
"Whether, the Tribunal was justified in law and had valid materials to hold that medical expenditure incurred in connection with by-pass surgery of the managing director and also the travelling expenses in this connection incurred by the director and managing director's wife were to be treated as business expenses allowable in the hands of the assessee-company?" - finding of the Tribunal that the expenditure incurred on medical expenses and travelling expenses for the purpose of bypass surgery of the managing director in the United States of America is a business expenditure is erroneous in law.
-
2003 (4) TMI 61
Search and seizure operation was carried out under section 132 – block assessment - notice under section 158BC was issued - Emphasis has been given on the fact that evidence must have been found during the search and only thereafter the question of gathering any material information would arise based on the search inquiry. It is not disputed at the Bar, that during the search in the premises of the assessee nothing was found with regard to the investment in the house. However, it is contended by Mr. Arya that the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer was obtained and was confronted to the assessee but he was not able to give any explanation and, therefore, it should be accepted as evidence. we do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal.
-
2003 (4) TMI 60
Recovery – stay - By this writ application, the writ petitioner has prayed for setting aside notice u/s 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued by respondent No. 1 for realisation of the demanded amount from the different persons who are holding money for or on account of the petitioner. - no substance in the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya that for non-service of notice under section 226(3)(iv) of the Act the process of recovery under section 226(3) should be annulled - I find no substance in the contention of the petitioner that recovery of amount by giving notice under section 226(3) of the Act from the State Bank of India is vitiated in any way.
-
2003 (4) TMI 59
Penalty - concealment of income - "(i) Whether, , the Tribunal's finding regarding revised return dated October 15, 1976, having been filed before detection of discrepancy by the Income-tax Officer was perverse in view of such discrepancy having been pointed out by the Income-tax Officer on an earlier date, namely, September 10, 1976? - (ii) Whether, , the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the question of the provisions of the Explanation below section 271(1)(c) being attracted in the case had to be decided not with reference to the income declared as per the original return, but with reference to the income declared as per the revised return? - (iii) Whether, , the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act?" - All the three questions are decided in favour of the Revenue.
-
2003 (4) TMI 58
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - petitioner in this writ petition seeks a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner on Rs. 13,78,111 at the rate of eight per cent. from January 1, 1986, up to February 8, 1999, and at the rate of 12 per cent. thereafter up to April 13, 2000, which is the date of the refund order. - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of remanding the matter, we direct that the petitioner shall be entitled to the simple interest at the rate of six per cent. on the amount which has remained with the respondent.
-
2003 (4) TMI 57
Entries in the cash book or ledger book regarding the sale - Offences And Prosecution - criminal revision petition has been directed by the Income-tax Officer, - in the present case, the evidence produced by the complainant is totally unworthy of credit or the same is patently absurd or inherently improbable. Thus, no prima facie case is made out. It cannot be said in any manner that the respondents had intentionally or wilfully evaded to make entries in the cash book or ledger book regarding the sale of 561 bags of cement. It is also not proved on record that they had wilfully made any wrong statement. No case is made out under section 465/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code, as they had not forged any document or any cash or ledger book - A businessman normally keeps 2/3 bill books at a time. I concur with the reasoning given in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no illegality or infirmity in the same. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 56
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 20,19,921 made by the Assessing Officer under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of non-interest bearing deposits received by the assessee from letting out its premises at Mumbai and Hyderabad to its sister concern? - (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 4,08,950 made by the Assessing Officer on account of non-refundable entrance fees received by the assessee?" - we answer both the questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
2003 (4) TMI 55
Questions of fact or question of law - Admittedly, the proviso to section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is attracted. On the facts and material produced before the Assessing Officer, the additions are made on account of sales, purchases and brokerages. Whether the sales, purchases and brokerages were genuine or not is basically a question of fact. In our view, the finding of fact is not perverse. The appeal stands dismissed.
-
2003 (4) TMI 54
Reference application – The Tribunal has not gone into the validity of the method of valuation of closing stock followed by the assessee. The appeal has been rejected only on the ground that the material evidence was not produced and. that the finding of the Assessing Officer remained uncontroverted. However, on a perusal of the record, as discussed above, the assessee had challenged the finding of the Assessing Officer and there is nothing to show that the assessee was called upon by the Assessing Officer to produce the material supporting evidence regarding ageing of stock - The assessee is rightly allowed and permitted to raise the plea regarding not asking to produce the relevant evidence while making valuation of stock in the reference application - It is purely on facts of this case and in the interest of justice that we are permitting the assessee to raise this ground in the reference application
-
2003 (4) TMI 53
Appeal to HC - It was argued on behalf of the Department that in this matter, the Department has come in appeal before the High Court as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has laid down a principle of law while remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer. No such principle has been laid down by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has merely directed valuation of the property as per Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in these appeals. – Thus, Department is not right in contending that it has come in appeal before the High Court as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has laid down a principle of law while remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer
-
2003 (4) TMI 52
"1. Whether Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the addition made on account of difference of 4,975.77 quintals of stock of rice and paddy as per bank statement furnished to the bank and as per stock register maintained by the assessee, which accepting the explanation of the assessee and ignoring the deposition of bank official who explained the system of pledge and hypothecation of stock and while ignoring the discrepancies found by the Assessing Officer? - 2. Whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue without considering the facts of the case especially when it was an admitted fact that there existed difference in stock as per bank statement furnished to the bank and the stock register maintained by the assessee ?" - No material was produced by the Department to show that the assessee had deliberately over-valued the stock for the purpose of securing higher credit from the bank. Therefore, the so-called discrepancy in the bank statement and the account books could not be made the basis for making additions in the declared income of the assessee
-
2003 (4) TMI 51
Interest Tax Act, 1974 - section 5 - chargeable interest - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that (i) interest paid by the assessee to the participating financial institutions on loan, and (ii) discount on promissory notes/ bills of the RBI, IDBI and other financial institutions are allowable as a deduction in arriving at the chargeable interest under the Interest-tax Act, 1974 ?" - we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee-bank and against the Department
....
|
9911796707
