Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2003 2003 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 441 to 460 of 490 Records

• 2003 (4) TMI 50
  

  Rejection of accounts – concealment of income - evidence - finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had concealed the income is not supported by any tangible evidence available on record - tribunal was right in holding that rejection of accounts was not justified

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 49
  

  Claim for relief under section 80M on the dividends - gross dividend or net dividend – Held that deduction under section 80M has to be calculated with reference to the amount of interest computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act after deducting interest on monies borrowed for earning such income and not with reference to the full amount of dividend received by the assessee - "Whether the Department was entitled to import the rule of proportionate expenditure and interest contemplated by section 20 of the Act as it then stood into section 80M of the Act ?" - Our answer to this question is in favour of the assessee-bank and against the Department

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 48
  

  Imposition of penalty under section 271B - reasonable cause for waiving or dispensing with the penalty under section 271B - not obtaining tax audit report under section 44AB in time - The conduct of the assessee indicates delay in filing the audit report - imposition of penalty was justified

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 47
  

  Offence under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Even assuming that the signature of Nalini has been affixed by any other person, it cannot be said to be a forgery, unless Nalini says that she has not given any consent to that person to affix her signature, as revealed in illustration "K" of section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. But the statement recorded by the Income-tax Officer from Nalini does not say that she never authorised anybody to affix her signature. Therefore, in law, it cannot be said to be a forgery. Moreover, the matter relates to the year 1981-82 and for all practical purposes, the firm had its partners as Jayaraman, Nalini and Susila Rajagopal and the authorities having held a partnership concern, no offence is made out. I feel the order of the learned Magistrate discharging the accused need not be disturbed.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 46
  

  Offence under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act - This revision has been filed by the complainant, namely, the Income-tax Officeragainst the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, discharging the accused of offence under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore, have to be necessarily set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for proceeding as per law - the revisions are allowed.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 45
  

  Penalty under section 271(1)(c) – no concealment - It would, thus, be seen that since the assessee had not claimed the entire sum of Rs. 16.50 lakhs for only the superstructure but had claimed it for building as well as land and given a break up of the price of the superstructure and the land on the basis of the valuer's report and as regards movables it had given particulars of the items, their original price and written down value, it cannot be said that there was any concealment of material particulars from the Income-tax Officer during the proceedings. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c)

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 44
  

  Depreciation - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to 100 per cent. depreciation of centering sheets as per the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on the ground that they are individual plant/machinery?" - It is true that the finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that each centering sheet is a plant is essentially on a question of fact and the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. However we have elucidated the issue on the merits in view of the importance of the question involved. - The appeals are accordingly dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 43
  

  Capital gain - sale of entire business as a going concern for a lump sum consideration - in this case, there was a transfer of the Kalyan business as a going concern to PPL and that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was a sale of itemized assets - sale of entire business as a going concern amounted to a slump sale and capital gain liable to be computed on that basis

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 42
  

  Gift Tax - "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the value of a car and jewellery given by the assessee to his daughter at the time of her marriage cannot be subjected to gift-tax?" - The order of the Appellate Tribunal is wholly incorrect. The order is, therefore, set aside. We restore the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The question under reference is answered in favour of the Revenue

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 41
  

  Assessee is a finance company. It is a public limited company carrying on business of leasing, financing hire purchase, dealing in shares and other financial activities - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, addition of Rs. 35.10 lakhs, being the difference between the sale price of the shares in question at the rate of Rs. 18.90 per share on 18th March, 1991, and the estimated realisable price of Rs. 54, after listing on the Calcutta Stock Exchange on June 27, 1991, as suppressed income, was justified?" - the above question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 40
  

  Rental income – transfer of assets - Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gift made by the assessee in favour of his three minor sons in the form of Hiba under the Mohammedan law attracts the provisions of section 64(1)(v) read with section 27(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, the rental income of the three minors from the properties gifted to them by the assessee was includible in the total income of the assessee for the three years under consideration

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 39
  

  Retrospective amendment to section 143(1A) - additional tax under section 143(1A) - depreciation governed by the provisions of section 32(2) - 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, additional tax under section 143(1A) was leviable especially since the levy has been made with respect to redetermination of depreciation governed by the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act? - 2. Whether additional tax under section 143(1A) was attracted having regard to the retrospective amendment to section 143(1A) of the Act?

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 38
  

  Capital gains tax – levy of - sale of land and building - "Whether, Tribunal is right in law in holding that the capital gains arising from the sale of land and building should be determined separately?" - hold that the land has to be assessed as a long-term capital asset and the building has to be assessed as a short-term capital asset for the purpose of levy of capital gains tax - Held that the fact that the income from the residential property is being assessed as income from house property cannot be a ground for denying the benefit available under section 80T and section 54E - We accordingly answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessees

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 37
  

  Expenses for obtaining the loan could not be treated as capital expenditure, because, their direct nexus was with acquiring the loan and not with acquiring of any asset - foreign tour expenses incurred by the managing director of the company was not incurred for any new project of the assessee but was in connection with some project – Thus, Tribunal erred in law in holding that the foreign tour expenses was not allowable revenue expenditure - Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made by the Income-tax Officer invoking the provisions of section 43B because first proviso to section 43B has to be treated as retrospective

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 36
  

  Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the club membership fees paid to the employees of Citibank did not constitute perquisite within the meaning of section 40A(5)?" – we answer this question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee - Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of disallowance under section 40A(5), the word 'salary' included encashment of unavailed leave?" - we answer this question in favour of the Department - Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that two separate limits have to be applied for computing disallowance u/s 40A(5) qua an employee who retires and qua an employee who ceases to be in the employment during the previous year - we answer this question in the negative, i.e.," in favour of the Department - Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that interest for the broken period should not be considered as part of the purchase price, but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the year of purchase of securities?" – This question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 35
  

  Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - interest on the sticky loans - proceedings were taken against the assessee on the return being filed declaring the chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, at Rs. 1,03,950 filed on March 18, 1989. It was in response to the notice issued under section 8(a) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 – Held that interest on the sticky loans cannot be included in the income-tax and accordingly, no surcharge can be included for the purpose of surtax. - There is no merit in the appeal. It is hereby dismissed.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 34
  

  The law was amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, retrospectively, with effect from April 1, 1989, by which the expression "not being less than thirty days" in section 148(1) stood deleted - Department moved a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act for rectification of the order passed by the Tribunal on June 26, 1996, on the ground that with the change in law retrospectively from April 1, 1989, the judgment dated June 26, 1996, needed rectification under section 254(2) - miscellaneous applications were dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that there was no apparent error on record as the amending Act received the assent of the President on September 28, 1996, i.e., after three months, from June 26, 1996, when the appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal – Held that miscellaneous application filed by the Department was rightly rejected by the Tribunal

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 33
  

  Eligibility for deduction of the service charges paid by the respective assessees-Government owned companies-to the Government as per certain Government orders under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - "1. Whether, assessee being a company owned by the 'Government of Kerala' is entitled to claim deduction of the amount paid to the Government of Kerala for the services rendered to the assessee by the Government? - 2. Whether, assessee is entitled to claim deduction of Rs. 6,72,429, the employer's contribution to the provident fund in the AY 1991-92?" - we set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and the two appellate authorities on the question of deduction of service charges under section 37 of the Act in all these cases and remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for consideration in accordance with law

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 32
  

  Tribunal is directed to refer the following questions along with the statement of case for the opinion of this court - "Whether, Tribunal was right in holding that before making a reference to the Valuation Officer for his opinion under section 133(6), it was necessary that there is material or evidence to indicate that certain expenses incurred on the construction have not been recorded in the books of the assessee? - Whether, the Valuation Officer's report was not sufficient material/evidence for the AO to determine the cost of construction of the property and whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on the basis of the Valuation Officer's report?"

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 31
  

  Penalty under section 271D - From the statement given by the assessee, during the course of search operation to the raiding party, it clearly appears that he had unequivocally accepted the veracity of these documents along with their contents - On a perusal of these documents one has no hesitation that the authorities below have not committed any error in appreciating these documents, as the basis for a show cause notice under section 269SS r.w.s. 271D - transactions of disbursement of the respective amounts as reflected in these documents are clear and they have not been disputed by the assessee – penalty is justified

  ---

1 ....19202122232425