Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2003 2003 (8) 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 469 Records

• 2003 (8) TMI 29
  

  Whether, the assessee in the accounting period relevant to the assessment order 197778 was a 'financial company' as defined in Explanation (c) to section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - A finding of fact has been recorded in the Tribunal's order that the principal business of the assessee was finance business. This is a finding of fact and we cannot interfere with the same in this reference

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 28
  

  Amount paid towards fine and penalty - whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and since the fine and penalty were paid for infraction of law, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for the same? - None of the authorities have addressed the question with reference to the provisions of the relevant Act and the rules under which the payment is made. In these circumstances, the matter has to be considered by the Assessing Officer himself - We set aside the orders of the three authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the matter afresh

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 27
  

  Jurisdiction of HC - The only jurisdiction of the High Court in a reference application is to answer the questions of law that are placed before it - in the absence of a specific question challenging the findings of fact of the Tribunal as perverse we are not justified in holding that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse - Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that there is nothing wrong in accepting the cash balance shown by the assessee – Revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 26
  

  Whether the respondent-Co-operative bank is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of the interest and dividend income earned by it out of the investment made by it in other banking institutions – Held yes - appeal is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 25
  

  Income from undisclosed sources - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 65 lakhs when the assessee had failed to discharge its onus under the provision of the Income-tax Act?" - when the very basis on which notice was issued to the assessee has since already been quashed, nothing survives in the matter – Thus, no referable question of law arises. The petition is dismissed,

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 24
  

  Ex-parte order - notice of hearing could not reach - petitioners themselves by mistake while giving their office address in Form No. 36, have given it as "Raheja Centre" instead of "Raheja Chambers" - wrong address of assessee given by a typographical error - The mistake of a typist cannot be attributed to the petitioners. The mistake was not a deliberate one. The petitioners were not to be benefited from the mistake in question. It was nothing but a bona fide mistake – Thus tribunal was not justified in deciding ex parte

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 23
  

  Maintainability of writ petition against the order of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax directing the petitioner to submit an audit report under section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the block period - time limit for furnishing of the report under sub-section (2A) - order under challenge was passed on February 21, 2003, and was admittedly served on the petitioner immediately thereafter and, therefore, the audit report had to be submitted by the third week of August, 2003 – writ petition is not maintainable - we decline to entertain the writ petition

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 22
  

  Applicability of section 194C(2) – Contract between assessee and its sister concern - Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no consideration was paid and there was no contract and as such the provisions of section 194C(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, could not come into play? - Once a finding has been recorded that there was no contract between the assessee and its sister concerns, there shall be no applicability of section 194C(2) of the 1961 Act. The particular question in the present case appears to be a question of fact. Once we are upholding the findings recorded by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, no question of law as framed in these cases arise. – Appeal of Revenue is dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 21
  

  Property under acquisition has been released by the Tribunal - Tribunal has returned a finding that examination of records would reveal that the competent authority recorded its satisfaction in view of the provisions contained in sections 269C and 269F(6) of the Act of 1961, yet, there was no specific order for the acquisition of the property under consideration. – Held that order for release of the property by the Tribunal was valid – there is no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 20
  

  Garnishee Proceedings - failure of the petitioner to pay in its capacity of garnishee - notice under section 226(3) issued by TRO - The Legislature while making the garnishee at default a deemed assessee, has restricted the right to recover the money due from him within the four comers of sections 222 to 225 of the Act and did not extend the same also to section 226 – Legislature did not permit initiation of a garnishee proceeding against the creditors of the garnishee who has become an assessee in default – Hence, Tax Recovery Officer could not issue the notice under section 226(3) to APBCL for failure of the petitioner

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 19
  

  Law applicable – Effect of amendments in Section 278 and insertion of Section 278B – Offences by company - It was alleged that the accused had knowingly made wrong verification in the income-tax return, declaring the income at a lower figure and, as such, had committed the offence punishable u/s 277 - With regard to the prosecution of the firm-M/s. Vishkarma Motors as accused, in my opinion, the prosecution against the firm is also liable to be quashed on the short ground that at the relevant time, i.e., on July 18, 1973, when the offence was allegedly committed, the accused could only be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. There was no provision for sentencing the accused to pay fine. In my opinion, the firm could not be prosecuted since the firm could not be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment. - held that a juristic person like a company could not be awarded punishment of imprisonment. – Criminal complaint under section 277 of the Income-tax Act read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are quashed

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 18
  

  Bogus purchases – additions - "Whether, Tribunal is correct in sustaining the additions on the ground that there were bogus purchases against the names of three identifiable persons and also against a number of unidentifiable parties?" - We are of the view that the aforesaid findings with regard to the quantity of 584 quintals of copra treated as bogus purchases are findings of fact entered purely on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. We do not find any question of law arising from the said order of the Tribunal.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 17
  

  Valuation of land and building and plant and machinery - "1. Whether, Tribunal was right in law in accepting the valuation of the registered valuer who valued land and building and plant and machinery at Rs. 48,32,113 whereas the Departmental Valuation Officer after considering the various factors made the valuation of the above property at Rs. 1,06,88,000? - 2. Whether, Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction at 15 per cent, out of the valuation of land and building and plant and machinery on account of joint ownership?" - Once, the whole controversy has been decided upon existing and verified facts in the method of evaluating land and building and plant and machinery of the assessee, and valuation based upon the GAV, has been rejected, in our considered view, no question of law arises for determination.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 16
  

  Revenue contend that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order passed on the merits. - Setting aside an ex parte order on the ground that the assessee for valid reasons could not attend the hearing of the case would not amount to review at all - In so far as the order on the merits is concerned, it appears that the matter has been decided on the basis of the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal - No merits in this revenue’s appeal so it is dismissed.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 15
  

  Reassessment - non-application of mind by department - Without assigning any reason whatsoever except filling up the address of the petitioner, the Department has decided to reassess the assessment – revenue not disclosing any reason for issuance of notice - Sub-section (2) of section 148 of the Income-tax Act very specifically provides that before issuing any notice under this section, the officer concerned must report his reasonings for doing so - Hence, the impugned notice, which is a classic example of non-application of mind, has to be set aside and the same is set aside

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 14
  

  Whether the brand name in respect of eight items of medicines sold by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs to M/s. Vysali Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. is exigible to capital gains tax – effect of the amendment to clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 55 - Admittedly this amendment is having only prospective effect from April 1, 2002. However, the effect of the amendment in relation to the earlier period is necessarily a matter to be considered by the Tribunal while determining the question as to whether brand name associated with a business was taken in within the expression goodwill - We emit the matter to the Tribunal for passing fresh orders

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 13
  

  Order of purchase of immovable property - impugned order demonstrates that the appropriate authority recorded satisfaction as there was a dispute regarding the ownership of the property by Smt. Sushila Devi and Shri Vaibhav and there was no document of joint ownership of the property as mentioned in the will and the remaining half share for which the will was executed and as there was a dispute as to title to receive the amount of consideration, the amount of consideration was deposited with the appropriate authority as per the provisions of section 269UG - orders under challenge do not suffer from any infirmity. I am of the opinion that the provisions of section 269UG(3) are attracted in the instant cases and section 269UG(1) is not applicable - writ petitions being devoid of merit stand dismissed,

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 12
  

  Order of attachment of property - Having regard to the nature of the order of attachment of the property, that is protective in nature, I am of the view that the attachment so made in respect of the property cannot be now questioned. However, without there being any authority, the respondent, Income-tax Department cannot collect the rent from the property unless an order has been passed by the authority that the source of investment has been made by the petitioner's sister and the property thus belongs to her.

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 11
  

  Reference to HC - Held that it is not mandatory for this court when once it is made that it may not proceed to answer the question or questions stated in the reference and to decide it though the same may be of purely academic interest and unnecessary to decide the real controversy - In such circumstances where the question is only academic or is unnecessary or it does not completely resolve the controversy, this court may ultimately refuse to answer the question or questions. - Held that it is not necessary to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal for our opinion because the answer to these questions will be purely academic and it may be an exercise in futility to answer these questions and remit the case back to the Tribunal. We, therefore, decline to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal

  ---

• 2003 (8) TMI 10
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - By notice dated March 30, 2000, the assessees have been directed to forward their comments - But, there was no sufficient time for the assessees to prepare their replies and they had also requested time for submitting their reply. However, by an order passed on the very next day, the assessment was completed. - Considering the fact that the assessees have not been given proper opportunity to submit their reply, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice, and hence, the initial order of assessment cannot be sustained.

  ---

1 ....192021222324