|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 469 of 469 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 9
Tribunal was absolutely correct in holding that the expenditure made on the trips to Tirupathi, Mahabalipuram, etc., and the expenditure made for some parties by making payments to various hotels, could be treated only as entertainment expenditure, which would be well covered within section 37(2A). The Tribunal was also right in rejecting the other expenditure, which was claimed to have been made by way of bribes, etc.
-
2002 (7) TMI 8
"(i) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company is entitled to a deduction u/s 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of its new unit? - (ii) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that section 40(c)(ii) and not section 40A(5) should be applied in allowing the deduction in respect of salary, perquisites, etc., to the managing director of the assessee-company in the AY 1980-81?" – Both the questions are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee – In respect of validity of charge or mortgage on the plant and machinery, held that the assessee had created a charge on its plant and machinery by entering into a trust deed with the directors, and also registered the charge with the Registrar of Companies as required under the Companies Act and that would suffice to create a charge over the plant and machinery of the assessee's company. Once there is a valid charge over the properties of the company, the disallowance of the interest payments is not correct
-
2002 (7) TMI 7
Whether the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment inasmuch as the appellant had claimed investment allowance on the machinery which was sold within eight years from the expiry of the year of installation? – Tribunal's view is that it was the duty of the assessee to disclose the fact of transfer before the Assessing Officer in the course of the original assessment proceedings - We are of the view that the decision of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error, much less any substantial error of law. The appeals are, therefore, summarily dismissed – Question answered in affirmative in favour of revenue
-
2002 (7) TMI 6
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - "1. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that a deduction of Rs. 1,50,000 in marriage expenses of three unmarried daughters be allowed out of the property of the deceased? - 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that while giving exemption under section 33(1)(n) in respect of house property included in the value of the estate one has to assume as if the house happened to come to the share of the deceased on a fictional partition of the Hindu undivided family before the date of the death and in allowing exemption of Rs. 1,00,000 instead of to the extent of the share of the deceased the house property?" - Our answer to both the questions is in the affirmative, that is in favour of the accountable person and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (7) TMI 5
Order by appropriate authority for purchase of plot - petitioners had not been given a hearing before the order - method adopted by the Authority for ascertaining the market value is far from being satisfactory and not one which can be regarded as fair and just in the circumstances, we have no alternative but to set aside the order made by the Authority and send the matter back to it for carrying out the exercise and valuation of this property on objective criteria taking into account relevant circumstances which existed as on the date of the agreement. - impugned order is, therefore, set aside
-
2002 (7) TMI 4
Reference to HC – registration of firm - Tribunal rejected the applicant's prayer made under section 256(1) - we deem it proper to call for a reference from the Tribunal - Accordingly, we allow the application and direct the ITAT, to refer the following question to be answered by this court: "Whether, Tribunal was justified in directing to grant registration of the firm for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 and continuation of registration for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88?"
-
2002 (7) TMI 3
Interest – borrowed capital/debit notes - "Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest for 12 months for the calendar year 1983 when the debit note was received after the close of the accounting year of the assessee?" - Revenue has not been able to dispute the fact that by making payment of interest the assessee-company does not stand to derive any advantage considering the assessment record of the assessee-company, which has been taken note of by the Tribunal. Similarly, that there is actual payment and Jyoti Limited, has paid tax on the interest received by Jyoti Limited is also not disputed. - for the reasons stated hereinbefore, it is not possible to accept any of the contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue there being no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.
-
2002 (7) TMI 2
Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in directing the AO to allow adjustment of interest expenses, to allow relief to the assessee with respect to the profit on sale of raw materials, not to charge interest under sections 234B and 234C - questions sought to be raised constitute substantial questions of law and really call for at any rate consideration on the merits and decision by the High Court - appeal is, therefore, allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside
-
2002 (7) TMI 1
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai waived the pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 92,400/- and proceeded to hear the appeal. Penalty of Rs. 87,800/- under Section 76 was set aside, while penalty of Rs. 4,600/- under Section 77 was upheld for late filing of Service Tax Returns by an "Air Travel Agent". The appeal was partly allowed.
....
|
9911796707
