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 461 to 480 of 490 Records

• 2003 (4) TMI 30
  

  Whether, Tribunal erred in holding that interest under section 234B and section 234C was not leviable in case income was subjected to tax under section 115J as it stood at the relevant time?" - Merely because the curtain rises in the cases of companies falling under section 115J after March 31, is no ground for the assessee-company not to pay interest under section 234B and section 234C - it was found that the tax liability under section 115J was ₹ 26,45,004 against which the advance-tax paid was, only ₹ 15 lakhs and, consequently, there was short payment of advance-tax Hence, interest under section 234B and section 234C was leviable

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 29
  

  Interpretation of an entry in Appendix I--"Depreciation Table", which prescribes the table of rates at which depreciation is admissible - Motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in a business of running them on hire - the assessee is a leasing and financing company. Its income is from lease rent, bill discounting and service charges. Therefore, merely because the assessee lets out motor buses, motor trucks and motor vans to its customers, it cannot be stated that the assessee is using the said vehicles in the business of running them on hire - there is a basic difference between "lease" and "hire" - Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to higher depreciation as the assessee did not run motor trucks, motor buses and motor vans on hire nor did it carry on the business of running them on hire

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 28
  

  By this petition, Dadar Manish Market Co-operative Society Limited has challenged the order of the Tax Recovery Officer dated March 24, 2003, on the ground that confirmation of auction sale by the Tax Recovery Officer would result in the society being asked to vacate the premises which would cause irreparable loss as the office of the society is situated in the said premises/shop – Held that writ petition was not maintainable to set aside sale of a premises which was occupied after order of attachment - Under rule 11(6) to the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act, the remedy is by way of a suit

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 27
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred on repairs, maintenance and insurance to the assessee's owned accommodation provided to the employees is not perquisites within the meaning of section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act? - The building in which the employees reside has been insured. The premium paid is an expenditure incurred by the assessee in respect of the building owned by the assessee. The building is the asset of the assessee. Therefore, the expenditure incurred in insuring the building is a perquisite

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 26
  

  Appellant submits when it cannot be conclusively determined whether this amount is an income of the assessee or at the hands of the partners included in their capital account. Therefore, when two views are possible, no penalty could be imposed - When two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in a penalty proceeding, penalty cannot be imposed.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 25
  

  "Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who had set aside the order of assessment with the direction to give fresh opportunity to the assessee?" - It is true that the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 144 requires that before framing the assessment under section 144, an opportunity should be given to the assessee - Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment after affording opportunity to the assessee for assessment under section 144 – Hence tribunal was not justified in not confirming the order of CIT (A)

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 24
  

  Addition u/s 69C - "Whether, in view of the provisions of section 158BB read with the definition of undisclosed income as contained in section 158B(b) Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition under section 69C to the extent of Rs. 31,703 and Rs. 40,000 on estimated basis without appreciating that neither any material was found in search nor any material was brought on record by the Revenue? - When there is a material on record that on special occasions such as grah pravesh, death of father of the assessee, birth of grand daughters and also marriage expenditure has not been shown in the books of account or the expenditure has not been correctly disclosed, it is open to the Assessing Officer even in such cases, additions can be made on appreciation of facts and circumstances of that case. - No interference is called for. The appeal stands dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 23
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - When after seeing the reply to the queries raised regarding the transaction, no addition was made in the income-tax assessment, there is no justification in the gift-tax proceedings, after referring the matter to the Valuation Officer, to estimate the value of that agricultural land at a higher amount. - Once the assessee has declared fully and truly all material facts for the assessment of that transaction, in our view, there is no justification to disturb that value in the gift-tax proceedings which has been accepted by the same Assessing Officer in the income-tax proceedings.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 22
  

  Delay of six days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal - Tribunal after considering all the aspects took the view that the appellant had not satisfactorily explained the reason for the delay of six days. We find that the assessing authority and the first appellate authority had clearly stated that the assessee had not produced any material whatsoever to show that the gross profit on motor vehicles is only less than five per cent - Tribunal was justified in disposing of the appeal by stating that there is a delay of six days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal but the assessee has not explained the cause of delay to the satisfaction of the Tribunal

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 21
  

  Unexplained Investment - Tribunal held that there was no material placed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to have tinkered with the order of the Assessing Officer whereby he has given sound reasons for holding that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the wife of the assessee received 40 tolas to 50 tolas of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage - there is no perversity in approach of Tribunal

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 20
  

  Rental received - determining the annual value – Property – a lease deed was entered into between the assessee and the firm, Lakshmi & Co., consisting of the wife and daughter of karta of the assessee Hindu undivided family and a trusted employee of the kartha as partners, under which the entire building was leased out to the firm on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,250. The firm, in turn, entered into several agreements of lease with different tenants in respect of several portions of the building - Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim of the appellant that the rent received by it from the firm comprising of the wife and daughter should be taken as the annual value

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 19
  

  Unaccounted investment – Standard deduction - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,49,127 made as unaccounted investment of the assessee in the firm, M/s. Eastern Retreads (P.) Ltd.? - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to standard deduction under section 16(1) of the Income-tax Act? - Since there is no due consideration of the explanation offered by the assessee in respect of the entries contained in the two slips either by the Assessing Officer or by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the matter requires consideration - Tribunal has allowed the claim for standard deduction without any discussion. Since we have already remitted the matter to the AO, we direct the AO to consider the claim of the assessee for standard deduction also afresh

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 18
  

  Rectification of mistake - There is no dispute as to the fact that Explanation 1 substituted in section 234B of the Act was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or due to oversight it escaped its notice. On bringing this fact to its notice, the Tribunal has rectified its mistake - we are fortified in our views that the Tribunal was justified in correcting the error apparent on the face of the record. Against such an order, by which the Tribunal has corrected its own mistake, we find that no substantial question of law is involved in this and the connected appeals.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 17
  

  Validity of order of rectification under section 143(1)(a) which have been made after institution of proceedings under section 143(3) - rectification procedure u/s 154 is not consistent with the issuance of a notice u/s 143(2) - Apparently initial intimation merges into regular assessment and once proceedings for regular assessment u/s 143(3) are commenced, there cannot be any recourse to bring into existence any order u/s 143(1)(a) whether originally or by rectification – Hence order was not valid

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 16
  

  Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the mention of section 273(2)(a) in place of section, i.e., 273(2)(aa) of the Income-tax Act was not material at all as the assessee was given reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposition of penalty and further holding that the assessee would not have furnished a different reply had the notice been issued under section 273(2)(aa)?" – view of tribunal is justified - we find that no substantial question of law is involved for our consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 15
  

  Commission income from LIC – allowability - Circular issued on January 6, 1984 provide that if the commission income from the LIC is less than Rs. 60,000, the expenditure may be allowed 50 per cent. on that commission income – Circular issued on January 6, 1984 and Circular No.648, dated March 30,1993 are not applicable to present case because in the case in hand, commission income is Rs. 1,73,715 – Thus, the commission income should be assessed and taxed in the hands of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act - In appeal, we cannot go into the question, as to what details are furnished and what details are not furnished. – So matter is remanded

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 14
  

  "1. Whether, in view of the fact that the assessee had failed to create the reserve before the closing of the accounts and drawing of the profit and loss account, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 80HHC? - 2. Whether, Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee had created the requisite reserve envisaged in the proviso to section 80HHC in its amended accounts in relation to the previous year in respect of which deduction was claimed by it and are not such creation of reserve and amendment of accounts impermissible and against the law?" we are of the view that the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 13
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(a) – Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a sufficient cause for delayed filing of the returns - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) by holding that the habitual default caused by the assessee has no relevance and would not constitute wilful default? - We are of the clear opinion that the so called questions of law as drafted in the memo of appeal cannot amount to substantial questions of law. Even on merits, we find that the Tribunal has applied its mind to all the factors argued before it. We are therefore of the clear opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 12
  

  "Whether, Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee (HUF) despite its being an Hindu undivided family is entitled to benefit of section 7(4) of the Act in respect of a property known as 'Dhairya Prasad'?" – The house in question was exclusively used by the assessee for residential purposes, and, in view of the assessee having opted to specify this house for the purpose of valuation under sub-section (4) of section 7, the fact that in the past assessment years, the assessee had claimed an exemption in respect thereof under section 5(1)(ivb), was hardly relevant and such exemptions availed of in the past in respect of that house did not preclude the assessee from exercising its option under the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 7 for the purpose of claiming the benefit of sub-section (4) – Thus question is answered in positive

  ---

• 2003 (4) TMI 11
  

  TDS - Petitions are filed by the associations representing the LIC Development Officers challenging the periodical circulars issued by the Executive Director (Marketing) of the LIC of India providing guidelines for deduction of income-tax at source on "additional conveyance allowance" paid to them - petitioners' contention is that additional conveyance allowance paid to them qualifies for exemption under section 10(14) - Held that it is for the Income-tax Department to scrutinise the correctness of TDS made either while considering the LIC's TDS returns or while assessing the income of the LIC development officers. - Exemption on additional conveyance allowance has to be considered with reference to the proved facts of each assessee (LIC development officer) and therefore the issue cannot be decided by this court

  ---

1 ....202122232425