Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2001 2001 (5) 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 459 of 459 Records

• 2001 (5) TMI 19
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether capital gains of Rs.7,45,109 could be considered for computing commercial profits for the purposes of section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Whether the Tribunal was right in cancelling the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 104 of the Act for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Consideration of Capital Gains for Computing Commercial Profits:
  The primary issue was whether the capital gains of Rs.7,45,109 could be considered for computing the commercial profits of the assessee-company for the purposes of section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a private limited company engaged in agricultural activities and dairy farming, argued that due to accumulated past losses and smallness of profits, declaring dividends would be unreasonable as per section 104(2)(i) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer disagreed, noting substantial capital gains reflected in the capital reserve, which the assessee did not utilize for business requirements, thus making them available for declaring dividends. The Tribunal held that capital gains should not form part of commercial profits, leaning towards the view favorable to the assessee.
  
  2. Cancellation of Orders Under Section 104:
  If the first issue was resolved against the assessee, the next question was whether the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 104 for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The Tribunal had previously concluded that section 104(1) could not be invoked by the Income-tax Officer, given the smallness of profits and past losses. However, the High Court, upon reviewing section 104 and relevant case laws, determined that capital gains are part of assessable income and should be considered in distributable income calculations. The court emphasized that the provisions of section 104 are penal and must be strictly construed, focusing on whether the payment of a higher dividend would be unreasonable.
  
  Legal Reasoning and Conclusion:
  The High Court noted that section 104 re-enacts section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and emphasized that capital gains are included in the definition of "total income" under section 2(24) of the Act. The court referred to several High Court decisions affirming that capital gains form part of assessable income for dividend declaration purposes. The court rejected the assessee's argument that capital gains from agricultural land, income from which is exempt from tax, should not be included in distributable income. It concluded that no distinction is permissible between taxable and non-taxable property income for capital gains consideration.
  
  Final Judgment:
  The High Court held that the Tribunal's view was not legally tenable. The answer to the first question was in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. Consequently, the second question was also answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The references were disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 18
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the appeal filed by a partnership firm dealing in gold and silver ornaments and money-lending for the assessment year 1993-94. The court upheld the decision to cancel the assessment and direct a de novo assessment by the Assessing Officer. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal and stated that the matter has to be considered de novo. The High Court found no substantial question of law involved and dismissed the appeal.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 17
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to add Rs.5,500 to the appellant's income as there was no evidence to support the claim that the fixed deposit belonged to the appellant's daughter. The court ruled that rectification was not justified as the evidence presented did not warrant it. The appeal was dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 16
  
  The High Court of Rajasthan rejected the Revenue's application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act to refer questions of law from a Tribunal's order. The court held that the questions were previously rejected in similar cases involving the same assessee. The application was rejected, and no costs were awarded.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 15
  
  The High Court of Rajasthan rejected two applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the deduction of share income. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the share income from the firm belonged to the heirs and two daughters equally as per the will, and only the widow's share was taxable. The Revenue's application for reference was rejected as it was deemed a question of fact, not law.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 14
  
  The High Court of Delhi quashed the proceedings in a complaint case under section 276CC and section 278B. The court ruled that no complaint could have been filed as the tax payable did not exceed Rs.3,000. The petition was allowed, and the complaint was dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 13
  
  Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 regarding exemption u/s 11 of the Act and violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d).
  
  Assessment Year 1995-96:
  The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decided in favor of the assessee on all aspects, which was affirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found the assessee entitled to exemption u/s 11 as a registered society under section 12A(a) of the Act, providing services in family planning, welfare, etc. The Tribunal held that payments made were reasonable and for valuable services, rejecting the Assessing Officer's reasons for refusal of exemption. Regarding the loan to Tyagi Foundation, it was found that there was no violation of section 13(5) as Tyagi Foundation was a genuine registered society engaged in charitable activities, and the loan was given within the object of the assessee-society. The expenses on conferences and clinics were deemed part of charitable activities, and the claim of depreciation was allowed.
  
  Assessment Year 1996-97:
  The assessee challenged the reasonableness of salary for this year, which was accepted based on the conclusions for 1995-96. The Tribunal found the conclusions to be factual with no question of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
  
  This judgment highlights the importance of factual findings and compliance with relevant provisions in determining eligibility for tax exemptions under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 12
  
  The High Court of Delhi declined to answer a question regarding the justification of a penalty for concealment imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found that the explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable, and the case was covered by the Explanation to clause (c) of the Act. The court concluded that the source of the loan obtained was not properly explained, and as such, no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 11
  
  The High Court of Delhi accepted a Revenue's prayer for reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction under section 80J for plant No. 3. The court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the merits as no other forum had dealt with the factual aspects.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 10
  
  Issues involved: Assessment of disallowed expenditures u/s 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act and disallowance of credit advanced out of agricultural income.
  
  Assessment of disallowed expenditures u/s 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act:
  The appellant filed a return of income declaring a loss, but the Assessing Officer disallowed certain purchases made in cash exceeding Rs.10,000, adding the sum to the disclosed income. The appellant contended that as each transaction was below Rs.10,000, section 40A(3) was not applicable. Additionally, the appellant claimed the case fell under rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules due to exceptional circumstances for not using a crossed cheque. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the addition under section 40A(3) based on findings that the payments were consciously split to circumvent the law. The Tribunal distinguished previous court decisions cited by the appellant, concluding that the addition was justified.
  
  Disallowance of credit advanced out of agricultural income:
  A sum of Rs.1,50,000 shown as credit advanced out of agricultural income was disallowed by the Assessing Officer for lack of satisfactory explanation on the nature and source of the credit. The appellant failed to provide evidence supporting the claim that the payment in cash was due to exceptional circumstances or genuine difficulties. The High Court upheld the decision, stating that the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof, and the findings were not unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed.
  
  This judgment highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence and explanations in tax matters to support claims and avoid disallowances under relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 9
  

  Wealth Tax, Reassessment, HUF - initiation of proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, after the expiry of four years - "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that initiation of proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act was barred by limitation, which finding was arrived at by ignoring the amended provisions of law? - (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that after the partition of the Hindu undivided family, notices need to be served on all the erstwhile members of the Hindu undivided family, when service of notice upon a karta of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family was sufficient compliance to the requirements of law?"

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 8
  

  Charitable Purposes, Agricultural Income, Exemption - "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the agricultural income will not form part of total income for the purpose of computing the accumulation of income in excess of 25 per cent. of the total income as laid down under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the agricultural income will not form part of total income for the purpose of computing the accumulation of income in excess of 25 per cent. of the total income as laid down under section 11 of the Income-tax Act 1961?" - Section 10(1) of the Act excludes agricultural income and in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the reference as sought for is uncalled for.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 7
  

  Capital/revenue receipt - "non-compete agreement" - payment of the amount under the agreement has been paid to the assessee by Gillette Company to refrain from engaging himself whether directly or indirectly in any business which undertakes or is engaged in the manufacture or marketing or distribution of razor blades, shaving systems or shaving preparations. That amount cannot be taxed as revenue receipt, especially when no material has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to justify that the agreement dated December 15, 1996, is a colourable device – Revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 6
  

  Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the liquidated damages received by the assessee on account of breach of contract are nothing but a part of profit received from the industrial undertaking on which the assessee is entitled for deduction under sections 80HH and 80-IA - High Court, in our opinion, was wrong in dismissing the appeal in limine. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the High Court's order

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 5
  

  Purchase of Immovable Property - proceedings initiated u/s XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking t acquire certain properties on the ground that the consideration disclosed in the sale documents fell short of the real market value of the property - Whether, HC was justified in coming to the conclusion that the sum tendered by the Central Government, was beyond the stipulated period u/s 269UG, thus attracting the wrath of s. 269UH . resulting in abrogation of the purchase order - Held, yes

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 4
  

  Fair market value of the property in question was over the apparent consideration disclosed by 28.5 % - On that basis Appropriate Authority proceeded to acquire the property for the UOI, rejecting the explanation offered by the transferor - value, of the property either with reference to the apparent consideration or the f.m.v. determined by the Appropriate Authority is not of such magnitude as to call for any interference - HC is justified in setting aside the order for pre emptive purchase

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 3
  

  According to the appropriate authority, the fair market value with reference to the first property was worked out at Rs. 35 lakhs and with reference to the other property at Rs. 42 lakhs- Whether, order of pre emptive purchase was vitiated - When relevant factors had been ignored by the appropriate authority, necessarily we find the view taken by the High Court in holding that the order of the appropriate authority is vitiated is correct.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 2
  

  Purchase of Immovable Property by Central Government - According to the appropriate authority, the fair market value is assessed to be Rs. 96,85,650, thus resulting in an increase by 20 per cent. of the apparent consideration of Rs. 80 lakhs plus conversion charges of Rs. 1,04,000 - If a relevant factor is ignored, the order of pre-emptive purchase made becomes vitiated

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 1
  
  Issues:
  Whether the activity of printing and publishing of yellow pages will attract levy of Service Tax.
  
  Analysis:
  In this appeal, the Appellants, a printing and publishing agency, contested the imposition of Service Tax on their activity of printing and publishing yellow pages and booking advertisements for newspapers and magazines. The Assistant Commissioner had held that advertisements through yellow pages attract Service Tax as they form a source of advertisement. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the Appellants were acting as an advertising agency, not solely engaged in printing and publishing. The Appellants cited a Ministry of Finance letter clarifying that yellow pages, being print media, are not subject to Service Tax for advertisements. However, the time limit for seeking a refund was contested.
  
  The Appellants argued that the Ministry's letter exempting yellow pages from Service Tax was not considered by the lower authorities, and the issue of the time limit for seeking a refund was not addressed in the impugned Order. The Tribunal noted that the Ministry's letter clarified that printing and publishing yellow pages do not attract Service Tax, but Service Tax is applicable to advertising agencies providing services like conceptualizing and designing advertisements. The Tribunal set aside the impugned Order and remanded the matter to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner to reevaluate the chargeability of the activity to Service Tax in light of the Ministry's letter and to consider the time limit and unjust enrichment, providing a fair hearing to the Appellants.
  
  This judgment emphasizes the distinction between printing and publishing yellow pages, which do not attract Service Tax, and advertising agencies providing advertisement-related services, which are subject to Service Tax. It highlights the importance of considering relevant government circulars in tax assessments and ensuring a thorough examination of all aspects, including time limits and unjust enrichment, in adjudicating tax matters.

  ---

1 ....1920212223