Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1998 1998 (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 461 to 464 of 464 Records

• 1998 (4) TMI 4
  
  Issues:
  1. Disallowance under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act.
  2. Disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act.
  3. Interpretation of cash payments like house rent allowance, medical reimbursements, and club subscriptions as salary for computing admissible perquisites under sections 40(c) and 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The assessing authorities disallowed a sum under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal held that certain cash payments should be considered as remuneration or salary, impacting the ceiling limit for disallowance under section 40(c). The Tribunal referred the matter to the High Court for opinion.
  
  2. The disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act was also contested. The Tribunal considered cash payments like medical reimbursements as salary for computing admissible perquisites. The High Court analyzed the distinction between sections 40(c) and 40A(5) in terms of expenditure incurred on directors and employees, respectively.
  
  3. The High Court reframed the questions to address the specific issues under sections 40(c) and 40A(5). The Court considered arguments from both parties and referred to a Supreme Court case for guidance. Following the precedent, the Court ruled that cash payments for medical reimbursements do not fall under section 40A(5). Regarding house rent allowance and club subscriptions, the Court found the club subscription not correlating to legitimate business needs, leading to disallowance, while the house rent allowance issue remained unanswered due to lack of discussion by the taxing authorities.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to disallowances under sections 40(c) and 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the distinction between payments to directors and employees. The judgment clarified the treatment of cash payments as salary for computing admissible perquisites and made specific rulings on medical reimbursements, club subscriptions, and house rent allowance based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

  ---

• 1998 (4) TMI 3
  
  Issues:
  Taxability of income received as pension from the British Government for assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment of the court addressed the question of law regarding the taxability of the assessee's income received as pension from the British Government for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82. The assessee had worked as an employee for the Somali and Aden Governments under the colonial rule of the British Government. After the independence of Somaliland and Aden, the obligation of paying salaries and pensions to the employees devolved on the respective local Governments. An agreement was reached between the Somali Government and the British Government for the payment of pensions to retired employees. However, when the Somali Republic broke off diplomatic relations with the British Government, the British Government continued to pay pensions to the pensioners directly. The pensioners were assured continuous payment of pensions, and any amounts received were considered as advances against arrears of pension. The court noted that the payments were made by the British Government, and the pensioners received full amounts due to them as the Somali Government had abdicated its responsibility. The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to treat the pension amounts as salary for tax purposes and allowed standard deductions on the pension received by the assessee.
  
  The court emphasized that the pension received by the assessee was to be regarded as salary for tax purposes. The source of funds for paying the pension was always the British Government, even after the independence of Somaliland. The court highlighted that the real character of the payment received by the assessee was pension for services rendered to the British Government over a long period. Despite being described as advances against pension, the payments were made directly by the British Government to the pensioners, indicating the British Government's continuous responsibility for the pensions. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and answered the question of taxability in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
  
  In conclusion, the court held that the amounts received by the assessee as pension from the British Government were taxable as salary income. The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to treat the pension amounts as salary for tax purposes, considering the continuous payment of pensions by the British Government and the real character of the payments as pension for services rendered to the British Government. The judgment favored the Revenue and rejected the assessee's contention that no income tax was payable on the pension amounts received.

  ---

• 1998 (4) TMI 2
  
  The High Court of Madras ruled that the assessee is not entitled to relief under section 32A and deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act for income from processing shrimps for export, as processing shrimps does not amount to manufacturing. The judgment was based on a previous case and was in favor of the Revenue. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 1998 (4) TMI 1
  
  Issues involved: Determination of whether processing of shrimps amounts to production or manufacture for deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court of Madras considered the case involving the assessment of income for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 of an assessee engaged in processing and exporting shrimps. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim for deduction under section 80HH, stating that processing does not constitute production or manufacture. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tribunal held that processing shrimps amounts to manufacture, citing precedents from other High Courts. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that it contradicted Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the distinction between processed and raw commodities.
  
  The Supreme Court's precedent in the case of Sterling Foods established that processed shrimps retain their original character and identity, being commercially regarded the same as raw shrimps. The Court further referenced a U.S. Supreme Court case to support this position. Despite these clear precedents, the assessee's counsel attempted to justify the processing of shrimps as manufacturing, citing decisions from various High Courts. However, the Court deemed these decisions as incorrectly decided and disagreed with them.
  
  Additionally, the counsel relied on another apex court decision to argue that processing shrimps amounts to production, even if not manufacturing. However, the Court clarified that the processing of shrimps for export does not result in the creation of a new commodity, thus not entitling the assessee to the deduction under section 80HH. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, denying the deduction and awarding costs to the Revenue.

  ---

1 ....2021222324