|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 469 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 30
TDS - Contractor - The above batch of writ appeals have been filed questioning the orders of the learned single judge, in striking down Circular No. 681, dated March 8, 1994, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the ground of it being ultra vires section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - The argument that inasmuch as the Finance Act, 1995, was enacted authorising the deduction even for mere transportation of goods, and as such, the circular is deemed to have been ratified by Parliament is also liable to be rejected, for the reason that the said Finance Act, 1995, which came into effect from July 1, 1995, is only prospective in operation and not retrospective. It is also clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court, cited supra. In view of the above, all the writ appeals are dismissed
-
2002 (7) TMI 29
In this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of a circular issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax to the Land Acquisition Collector, directing him to deduct tax at source at the time of making payment of interest to the petitioner on account of enhancement of compensation. It is also prayed that the Collector may be restrained from deducting the tax at source in terms of the said circular. According to the petitioner, since the amount of interest payable on account of delay in payment of enhanced compensation is not liable to be taxed, the Land Acquisition Collector cannot be asked to deduct tax at source. - the writ petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged.
-
2002 (7) TMI 28
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the commission paid to the agents on actual sales cannot form sales promotion expenses? - we hold that the commission paid to the agents cannot be treated as sales promotion expenses within the meaning of section 37(3A) of the Act. The question referred is accordingly answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 27
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses see was entitled to carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation? - (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest could have been charged under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deletion of Rs. 76,648 on account of house property income was justified?" - "(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses see was entitled to carry forward and set off of unabsorbed development rebate and investment allowance?" - our answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - our answer to question No. (2) is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - our answer to question No. (3) is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - our answer to question No. (4) is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee
-
2002 (7) TMI 26
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 25,875 paid as gratuity to Shri G.P. Periwal, former sales manager of the assessee, was not admissible as business expenditure?" – Considering the finding of facts of the Tribunal that there is no practice of making payment of gratuity nor there is any statute under which gratuity is payable to the employee nor salary was low for the purpose of payment of gratuity, therefore, there is no expectation of the employee for the payment of gratuity. There is no material on record to show that the amount of gratuity has been paid to any other employee. In view of the above facts, no case is made out for making payment of gratuity to the employee. In the result, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (7) TMI 25
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 8,000 out of the mess expenses incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the business were not allowable? - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any material or any evidence in holding that the expenditure on consumption of stores and coal is disallowable to the extent of Rs. 30,000? - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the whether Tribunal had any material or evidence in disallowing a sum of Rs. 70,000 out of the expenditure under the head 'Consumption of hexine'?" - A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the finding of fact is not perverse, therefore, no interference is called for. - we answer all these three questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (7) TMI 24
"(i) Whether the petitioner has a right of appeal against the order impugned to this court under section 260A of the Act? - (ii) Whether this is a fit case for this court to examine the correctness of the impugned order in exercise of the power conferred on it under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, even if the right of appeal is available?" - The scope of examination by this court with regard to the grievance made by the parties against the order passed by the subordinate authorities, the Tribunals and courts in exercise of the power under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is much narrower and circumscribed by in-built limitations imposed on it than the right of appeal conferred in a statute. So question No. 2 is also required to be answered against the petitioner.
-
2002 (7) TMI 23
"1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in its interpretation and application of section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - 2. Whether, Tribunal was right in holding that the entire expenditure of Rs. 39,24,979 was not eligible for weighted deduction under section 35C? - 3. Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that only ten per cent. of the expenses incurred on dissemination of information or demonstration of modern techniques and the methods of agricultural, animal husbandry or dairy or poultry farming or advice on such techniques or methods is eligible for weighted deduction under section 35C of the Act? we answer questions Nos. 1 to 3 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cost price of milk powder and soya flour received by the union from the UNICEF free of charge is not deductible in the computation of the total income?" - We answer question No. 4 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 22
Held that Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by which he had restored the matter regarding levy of interest under section 216 to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration and rejecting the assessee's additional ground raised in this behalf – Held that Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 2,500 incurred by the assessee in the preparation of the income-tax return was covered by section 80VVof the Income-tax Act and, therefore, not allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
-
2002 (7) TMI 21
Weighted deduction under section 35B - technical director's salary - The condition precedent for weighted deduction on a salary of the person is that he should perform the services outside India. Admittedly, the technical director had rendered the services in India and not outside India and when the services had been rendered by the director in India and he has been paid the salary for the same in India, the payment does not come under sub-clause (viii) of sub-section (1)(b) of section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Merely because his services have some connection with export, his salary is not eligible for weighted deduction, as required under sub-clause (viii) of sub-section (1)(b) of section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Tribunal was not justified in holding that weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is admissible on technical director's salary
-
2002 (7) TMI 20
"Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,22,620 representing deferred sales tax, i.e., unpaid sales tax liability, did not attract the provisions of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" - In this reference, the only dispute is about disallowance under section 43B for unpaid sum of Rs. 2,22,620 for sales tax. It is the stand of the assessee before the assessing authority that the State Government had allowed the assessee to return sales tax collected as a sort of incentive provided for the growth of industry. On this basis, it was contended by the assessee that its case was covered by the provisions contained in section 43B of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer has, however, rejected the assessee's claim. - We are, of the view that the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the Income-tax Officer by invoking the provision of section 43B in respect of unpaid sales tax liability.
-
2002 (7) TMI 19
This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood before the amendment of 1999, praying for calling reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, for resolution of the question, as extracted in para. 4 of the application, which is said to be a question of law. - The dispute is regarding payments made to the assessee in instalments, by one Shri R.C. Khosla (promoter and managing director of the respondent-company), in the relevant assessment year, amounting to Rs. 2,31,390. – penalty imposed in contravention of section 269SS was vacated in second appeal by the Tribunal on the finding that the said payment was not by way of deposit or loan, but towards adjustments of the amount drawn by Shri Khosla, from the company's account. We find ourselves in full agreement with the Tribunal
-
2002 (7) TMI 18
"Whether, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that no sub-partnership was formed between the assessee and his wife, Smt. Suryakanta Natwarlal, and the share of the assessee's wife could not be included in the income of the assessee, is correct in law and sustainable from the material on record?" - Nothing was pointed out to us which would show that the requirements of partnership as stated above were satisfied in the present case. Simply, on the basis of the inference drawn by the Revenue, it cannot be said that sub-partnership was created. We, therefore, agree with the reasoning given by the Tribunal and hold that no sub-partnership was formed between the assessee and his wife and the share of the assessee's wife could not be included in the income of the assessee. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 17
Petitioner has stated that it has been a tenant of premises from 1955 on a monthly rental of Rs. 300, and has claimed the protection of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. - The impugned notice, in so far as it requires the tenant to hand over possession solely on the ground that an order had been made under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act cannot, therefore, be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside. - The petition is allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 16
Bad debts - West Bengal State Financial Corporation formed under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, had invested in shares of various companies and the investments - assessee-corporation wrote off the above said as a bad investment and stated that "there is no possibility of getting any amount against the investment in the shares of the company". - Once one accepts the findings on fact of the Tribunal that the shares were not treated as stock-in-trade by the corporation but as investments in the said companies, the argument of writing off made by the assessee cannot be sustained on any point of law, nor on any particular section of the Income-tax Act.
-
2002 (7) TMI 15
"1. Whether, the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of bank charges of Rs. 8,68,600 has to be conceded? - 2. Whether, disallowance under sections 40A(5) and 40(c) was rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the expenditure incurred on the company cars which were used for the personal purposes of the employees and directors? - 3. Whether, the sum of Rs. 81,810 incurred by the assessee for shifting its administrative office from Madurai to Bangalore as a result of amalgamation of three companies having number of activities in various centres was allowable as revenue expenditure in the computation of its business income?" - The first question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee - We, answer second question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - we answer the third question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (7) TMI 14
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment made in the case was not barred by limitation?" - Since we are in agreement with the Tribunal that the action under section 144B was rightly taken, there can be no doubt that the Income-tax Officer would be entitled to get the time in obtaining the order by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and that period has to be ignored for the purpose of limitation. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was absolutely right in treating the assessment order to be within time
-
2002 (7) TMI 12
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - "Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no gift by the assessee in favour of the two partners of the firm whose shares had increased after the retirement of the assessee?" - The two partners whose share was increased had not only agreed to share their losses but had also brought fresh capital when the assessee retired from the partnership firm. - decision of the apex court in D. C. Shah's case is clearly applicable and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that there was no gift made by the assessee in favour of two of the continuing partners. In view of the above discussion, our answer to the question is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 11
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - taxable gift - "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding hat when the assessee had reduced his share in partnership firm from 25 per cent. to 4 per cent., there was no taxable gift ?" - facts brought on record by the assessee are that the partner whose share was reduced from 25 per cent. to four per cent. was 80 years of age and was totally blind and, therefore, was physically unfit for continuing as a partner of the firm and, therefore, it was necessary to transfer his right to share partnership profits to the other partners - Accordingly, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
2002 (7) TMI 10
A criminal complaint was filed by the appellant/Union of India against the respondents for initiation of the prosecution, on account of their violation of certain provisions of the Income-tax Act - They were charged and prosecuted for the commission of offence punishable under sections 276B and 278B - There was no intentional suppression of income by the respondents/assessee - assessee had shown in their return for the relevant assessment year, interest paid to the concerned depositors but due to inadvertence they had not annexed Form No. 15A along with the return and had also not filed the return form in Form No. 26A, as required under rule 37(2A) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It has been recorded that if the assessee had been asked by the Assessing Officer to comply with the said requirement and if they had failed to do so, then it could have been said that there was intentional default committed by the assessee. But this procedure was not adopted by the Assessing Officer, therefore, it is not proved that they had deliberately or intentionally committed this default - assessee is not liable to be prosecuted for the commission of offence punishable under sections 276B and 278B
....
|
9911796707
