|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 678 Records
-
2007 (7) TMI 223
Findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal shows that the assessee has disclosed all detailed particulars about his income which he has received albeit claiming the same to be gift (received through bank) - case does not fall within the mischief of section 271(1) (c) and it cannot be concluded that the assessee has, furnished incorrect particulars - Even otherwise, no evidence with regard to concealment has been placed on record by the Revenue – penalty not sustainable
-
2007 (7) TMI 222
Tribunal hold that the expenses for the issue of debenture is an allowable deduction as revenue expenditure u/s 37- Revenue has not produced any material or evidence to take a different view - reasoning of the Tribunal was based on relevant materials and evidence and there is no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal to warrant interference
-
2007 (7) TMI 221
Interest on refund - Order passed by Commissioner, Chief commissioner refusing to pay interest on the excess amount of tax deducted at source on the ground that the excess amount of tax deducted at source was not as a result of any order passed by the authority under the Income Tax Act, is liable to be set aside - respondents are directed to grant compensation by way of interest, for delay in payment of amounts lawfully due to assessee
-
2007 (7) TMI 220
Works Contracts - activity relating to interior works - work included making false ceilings, partitions, panelling and boxing, etc. – assessee is working under the instructions of the architects and do the execution part alone – held that appellant were carrying activities more akin to civil work in terms of definition of the term Commercial or Industrial Construction Services – assessee plea was rejected and they were brought under the definition of “Interior Decorators” – stay partly granted
-
2007 (7) TMI 219
Quantities mentioned in the private records were found higher than those mentioned in invoices – in respect of other items of fireworks, either no quantity was mentioned in private records or a lesser quantity was mentioned therein as compared to invoices - held that the entire quantity of fireworks mentioned in the private records was liable to be added to the total quantity in the invoices to arrive at the aggregate value of clearances for the purpose of the relevant SSI Notification 1/93
-
2007 (7) TMI 218
Adjudication authority travelled beyond directions of remand order for quantification of duty & further re-adjudicated the matter, which had already reached finality – re-adjudication can’t be said proper – Compounded levy scheme – not proved that appellant manufactured bars & rods other than bars & rods of alloy steel - hold that the provisions of Rule 96ZO (3) would be applicable and no duty-liability can be fastened in respect of the Furnace, in which non-notified goods are manufactured
-
2007 (7) TMI 217
Bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable on pre-deposit, but applicable only on duty – since amount was deposited during pendency of appeal so it can not be treated as duty but only as pre-deposit – hence refund of pre-deposit can not be held time barred
-
2007 (7) TMI 216
Penalty u/s 271D for violation of provision of section 269SS – deposit in cash exceeding prescribed limit - no mens rea or mala fide intention in accepting the amount by cash and not by cheque - reasonable cause for accepting the deposits in cash given by assessee - Tribunal was justified and correct in law in upholding the judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax in deleting the penalty – no substantial question of law arise – appeal of revenue dismissed
-
2007 (7) TMI 215
Assessee’s case is that in spite of repeated requests, the documents which were not relied upon, were not returned to them - Some of the non-relied documents appear to have been given subsequent to the orders passed by the respondent no. 2 (commissioner) – Commissioner is directed to make available the copies of the data recovered from the assessee’s seized computers, which have become the basis of the conclusion of undervaluation – assessee’s petition allowed
-
2007 (7) TMI 214
Whether an appeal is valid or competent is a question entirely for the appellate court before whom the appeal is filed to decide and this determination is possible only after the appeal is heard but there is nothing to prevent a party from filing an appeal which may ultimately be found to be incompetent e.g., when it is held to be barred by limitation. From the mere fact that such an appeal is held to be unmaintainable on any pound whatsoever, it does not follow that there was no appeal pending before the court.
In the instant case the appeal is to be treated as pending. The High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. Orders of the designated authority rejecting the declaration filed by the appellant are quashed. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (7) TMI 213
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the addition of ₹ 34.25 lakhs not received by the appellant as the income of the appellant for the block period April 1, 1987, to March 17, 1997?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having accepted the fact that the sum of ₹ 34.25 lakhs was not received by the appellant, is justified in holding that the said sum represents the appellant's income?
Held that:- In the present case, part of the amounts derived from the agreements were shown for regular assessment and in respect of the balance amounts not received as per the agreements it was not shown and offered for assessment. Later, the block assessment was made in consequence of the search and while making the block assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the balance amount of ₹ 34.25 lakhs was not offered for tax and hence he was of the view that it was an undisclosed income for the block period. No details were available on the record in respect of the same. The Tribunal which is the highest fact finding authority ought to have considered the same as to how the impugned amount could be considered as undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B of the Act, or not. Unfortunately, we lack the precious finding on the crucial factor related to answering the above questions of law. Without the precious finding, it is very difficult for this court to determine the issue.
Set aside the order of the Tribunal with a direction to rehear the matter and consider the scope of Chapter XIV-B.
-
2007 (7) TMI 212
Issues:
1. Assessment of weighted deduction under section 35B
2. Exclusion of income from overseas branches from total income assessable in India
Analysis:
1. Assessment of weighted deduction under section 35B:
The appeal before the High Court pertained to the assessment year 1981-82 and primarily focused on the question of weighted deduction under section 35B. The Assessing Officer initially rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under this section, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) acknowledged the entitlement to such deduction. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal considered various contentions and determined the eligibility for weighted deduction on specific expenses. Notably, the Tribunal disagreed with certain aspects of the Commissioner's findings and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the weighted deductions for the assessee in accordance with the law for the relevant assessment years.
2. Exclusion of income from overseas branches:
The Tribunal also addressed the issue raised by the assessee regarding the exclusion of income from its overseas branches in Singapore and Japan from the total income assessable to tax in India for the assessment year 1981-82. Grounds of appeal were presented seeking the exclusion of income from these branches, which were previously covered in favor of the assessee in earlier orders by the I.T.A.T. Following the precedent set by those orders, the Tribunal allowed the exclusion of income from the Singapore and Japan branches for the assessment year in question.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the questions related to the weighted deduction had been adequately addressed, and the benefit granted to the assessee for income from overseas branches had been accepted by the Revenue. The judgment underscored that the matter of weighted deduction was the primary concern, and other issues regarding overseas income exclusion had already been settled in favor of the assessee.
-
2007 (7) TMI 211
Issues:
1. Appeal filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding cash credit and disallowance of interest.
2. Dispute arising from reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer after remand.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raising questions regarding the setting aside of cash credit and disallowance of interest. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also disposed of the Revenue's appeal by passing a similar order of remand. The dispute in the case arose from the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer after remand, where additions of unexplained cash credits and disallowance of interest were made. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter again instead of deciding it on merits led to confusion due to the common judgment for both appeals.
The High Court found that the Tribunal should have decided the matter on merits after the reassessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer in compliance with the remand order. The confusion arose from both appeals being heard and disposed of through a common judgment. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order pertaining to one of the appeals. The Tribunal was directed to hear the specific appeal on its merits and pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity for hearing. The income-tax appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, emphasizing the need for a thorough consideration of the issues raised regarding cash credit and disallowance of interest.
-
2007 (7) TMI 210
Liability written back in the profit and loss account treated as income for the assessment year set aside by ITAT
Held that:- It is trite saying that if there is a doubt about the taxing provision, the benefit of doubt must go to the assessee. The fact that clarification was introduced under section 41(1) with effect from April 1, 1997, clearly shows that the doubt prevailing in respect of section 41(1) has been clarified and that benefit must go to the assessee. As a matter of fact, this position is clarified by section 16 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996, which clarifies that the amendment by way of Explanation 1 will take effect from April 1, 1997, and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 1997-98 and not previous years.
The consideration of the matter by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law.
-
2007 (7) TMI 209
Income escaped assessment - Validity of notice issued u/s 148 - EOU/STP units engaged in the business of export of software - on-site projects at customer’s site abroad and off-shore projects, executed from India - return of income for the assessment year 1999-00 - declaring loss - HELD THAT:- It would be clear from the reason given that the respondent No.1 proceeded on the presumption that the law applicable was the law after the amendment and not the law in respect of which the petitioner has filed the return of income for the year 1999-00. This by itself clearly demonstrates that there was total non application of mind on the part of the respondent No.1 and consequently, the notice based on that reason would amount to non application of mind.
So far as the second contention is concerned, the learned counsel has drawn our attention firstly to the provisions of section 4 of the Act which sets out that any Act enacted by the Income Tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income tax at that rate or those rates shall be be charged for that year in accordance with and subject to the provisions, including the provisions for the levy of additional income tax in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person. Our attention is invited to section 2(45). Total income means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act. Next, our attention is invited to what is gross total income under section 80B(5). The gross total income has been described to be the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act before making any deduction under the relevant Chapter.
A perusal of section 10A(1) at it stood at the relevant time clearly sets out that subject to the provisions of this section, any profits and gains derived by an assessee from an industrial undertaking to which the section applies shall not be included in the total income of the assessee. In other words, it is clear that the income derived from an industrial undertaking by the assessee to which section 10A applies could not be included in the total income of the assessee. Once that is the case, the petitioner was right in filing the income by excluding the income of income in terms of section 10A.
Thus, the petition has to be allowed on both the counts.
-
2007 (7) TMI 208
Issues:
1. Eligibility for deduction under section 80-O for the assessment year 1998-99.
2. Assessment of income under the head 'Salary' versus 'Profits and gains of business or profession' affecting deduction under section 80-O.
Eligibility for deduction under section 80-O:
The case involved an individual assessee for the assessment year 1998-99, who initially claimed deduction under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, leading to an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, prompting the assessee to approach the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the claim under section 80-O, but the Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred by disregarding the amendment to section 80-O introduced by the Finance Act, 1997. The amended provision restricted relief under section 80-O to income received for the use outside India of specific intellectual property. The Tribunal failed to consider this amendment, and the assessee, through their counsel, acknowledged that they were not entitled to relief under section 80-O post-amendment. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, disallowing the deduction under section 80-O.
Assessment under 'Salary' impacting deduction under section 80-O:
The second issue revolved around the assessment of the assessee's income under the head 'Salary' instead of 'Profits and gains of business or profession.' The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had directed the assessment under the latter head, but the actual assessment was done under 'Salary.' The Tribunal's decision to grant relief under section 80-O was based on this assessment. However, since the court ruled that the assessee was not eligible for relief under section 80-O due to the amendment, it directed the Tribunal to reevaluate the alternative plea made by the assessee for deduction under section 80RR. The court instructed the Tribunal to consider this alternative claim and make a decision in accordance with the law after providing the assessee with the opportunity to present their case.
In conclusion, the court's judgment primarily focused on the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80-O for the assessment year 1998-99, highlighting the impact of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997. The assessment of income under the head 'Salary' and its effect on the deduction under section 80-O also formed a significant part of the judgment, leading to directions for further consideration of an alternative plea for deduction under section 80RR.
-
2007 (7) TMI 207
Issues involved:
- Appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1962 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench "B", Chennai
- Computation of limitation for passing order of revision by the Commissioner under section 263
- Requirement of clearance from the High Powered Committee for prosecuting appeals involving Government Departments and public sector undertakings
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1962 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench "B", Chennai. The central issue raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in considering the date of dispatch of the order for the computation of limitation to pass the order of revision by the Commissioner under section 263. During the proceedings, it was highlighted that in cases involving a dispute between a Government Department and a public sector undertaking, it is mandatory to obtain clearance from the High Powered Committee before initiating litigation. The Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, CBDT emphasized the importance of avoiding unnecessary litigation between Government Departments and public sector undertakings. It was noted that the High Powered Committee plays a crucial role in preventing frivolous disputes from reaching the courts without proper examination and clearance. The judgment underscored the significance of coordination between different entities within the government system to avoid wastage of public resources and time.
The court referred to the settled law that clearance from the High Powered Committee is essential before proceeding with litigation involving Government Departments or public sector undertakings. It was emphasized that the decision of the Committee is binding on all concerned parties and must be respected to maintain discipline and prevent unnecessary legal battles. In the present case, it was concluded that as the appellants had not obtained clearance from the Committee, the proceedings could not be continued. The court held that the High Court erred in delving into the merits of the case without considering the clearance aspect. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and costs were not awarded. However, the Revenue was given the option to revive the tax cases if clearance from the High Powered Committee was obtained in the future, highlighting the importance of adhering to the established procedures and legal requirements in such matters.
-
2007 (7) TMI 206
Issues involved:
Petitioner aggrieved by notice u/s 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 and order rejecting objections.
Judgment Details:
The petitioner challenged a notice dated March 10, 2006, u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and an order dated November 29, 2006, rejecting their objections. The notice was issued based on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court regarding the nature of expenses incurred by the assessee. The Assessing Officer initially sought to distinguish the judgment but later rejected the objections without providing reasons for the change in view. The High Court found this to be a total non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the communication dated November 29, 2006, was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration. Any adverse order against the petitioner was stayed for eight weeks from the date of communication. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (7) TMI 205
Issues involved:
1. Tax liability of a retired partner in a partnership firm.
2. Authority and propriety of the Revenue in issuing an order of attachment for tax liability.
3. Maintainability of a writ petition challenging the Revenue's order.
4. Proper procedure for recovery of tax liability from a partnership firm.
5. Application of contractual obligations in tax recovery matters.
6. Delayed challenge to Revenue's order and alternative remedies available.
Analysis:
1. Tax liability of a retired partner: The case involved a partnership firm where a partner retired, and later, undisclosed income was disclosed for taxation purposes. The retired partner contested the tax liability, arguing that he did not benefit from the undisclosed income and should not be held liable. The court held that the liability was shared among the partners as per the partnership deed, and the retired partner was entitled to a share of the liability based on his profit-sharing ratio. However, since there was no evidence of payment to the retired partner, the tax was initially levied on him but later sought to be recovered from the firm.
2. Authority and propriety of Revenue in tax recovery: The firm challenged the Revenue's order of attachment for tax recovery, contending that the tax liability should be discharged by the firm and its existing partners. The court noted that the firm retained the benefit of the disclosure of undisclosed income and sought to shift the tax liability to the retired partner unjustly. The court upheld the Revenue's decision to attach the firm's dues for non-payment of tax by the retired partner, emphasizing that granting relief to the firm would result in unjust enrichment, citing legal precedents.
3. Maintainability of writ petition: The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Revenue's order, citing gross delay in approaching the court and lack of clean hands on the part of the petitioners. The court noted that the petitioners initially suggested recovering tax from the retired partner's properties but later claimed those properties were benami of the firm. The court held that the belated challenge to the Revenue's order was not maintainable, and the petitioners had alternative remedies available.
4. Proper procedure for tax recovery: The appellant argued that the Revenue did not follow the correct procedure for tax recovery, including issuing a proper demand notice and certificate under relevant sections of the Income-tax Act. The court considered these arguments but ultimately upheld the Revenue's decision to attach the firm's dues for non-payment of tax by the retired partner, emphasizing the firm's responsibility to discharge the debt.
5. Application of contractual obligations: The appellant contended that the contractual obligation indemnifying the retired partner against liabilities should not be invoked by the Revenue. However, the court held that the partnership deed assigned the liability to the continuing partners, and the retired partner was entitled to a share of the liability based on his profit-sharing ratio, which the firm failed to discharge.
6. Delayed challenge and alternative remedies: The court noted the delayed challenge to the Revenue's order and highlighted that the appellant had alternative remedies available, such as an appeal. The court emphasized that the appellant's approach to avoiding statutory liability was unfair, and the writ court, being a court of equity, declined to grant relief considering the appellant's actions and the circumstances of the case.
Overall, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Revenue's decision to attach the firm's dues for non-payment of tax by the retired partner, and emphasized the importance of equitable considerations in tax recovery matters.
-
2007 (7) TMI 204
Whether Tribunal was right in holding that income on the unexplained investments should be considered in the hands of the firm, M/s. V.V. Enterprises - assessee, was connected with the firm - evidences indicates that even the partners of the firm were fictitious - Tribunal erred in directing linking up of the deposits with the accounts of firm - onus of proving the source of deposit primarily rested on the persons in whose names the deposit appeared in various banks - revenue appeal is allowed
............
|
9911796707
