|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 525 Records
-
2002 (8) TMI 66
Computation Of Capital Gains - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right and had valid materials to accept the claim regarding the fair market value of the property as on January 1, 1964 at Rs. 1,80,000 in the place of Rs. 30,000, adopted by the Income-tax Officer? - 2. Whether the Tribunal's view that the certificate by the Sub-Registrar cannot be ignored and should be accepted, is reasonable, supported by valid materials and sustainable in law?" - the calculation being based on the certificate from the Sub Registrar and fair assessment on the basis of municipal tax and there being no other conflicting materials or data, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the questions raised for consideration are answered in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 65
Whether penalty is attracted under section 271(1)(c) of the Act where income is assessed purely on estimate basis and additions are made in the declared income on that basis. - the appeal is allowed and the question posed in the earlier part of the order is answered in the negative holding that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the income of an assessee is assessed on estimate basis and additions are made therein on that basis
-
2002 (8) TMI 64
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner No. 1 is entitled to extension of time in terms of section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of its claim for deduction in respect of the assessment year 1994-95. - The petitioner, in spite of service of notice under section 148 of the Act, took about sixteen months to file the return and the application under section 80HHC(2)(a) was filed much after two years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Besides, the convertible foreign exchange was brought in much beyond the period (limitation prescribed under section 153) within which the assessment under section 143/ 144 is required to be completed. The petitioner-assessee has thus disentitled himself to the grant of benefit of extension in time. - No case, in my view, has been made out by the petitioners for grant of the reliefs, as prayed for. - In the result, the writ application is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 63
Search Of Assets, Discharge Of Liability - The contention of the writ petitioner is that the entire amount due has been paid by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Settlement Commission and no further amount is due and payable. The writ petitioner has made an application on June 21, 2001, under section 132B(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, but the same has been kept pending in spite of repeated reminders. - When the application was filed on June 21, 2001, the application should have been disposed of forthwith and if any amount was due that should have been paid under such circumstances we are of the view that the assets should have been released. The respondents have unnecessarily retained the assets - we are of the view that unless it can be shown that any further amount is due from the writ petitioner the assets are to be released
-
2002 (8) TMI 62
Assessment, Intimation, Adjustment U/S 143(1)(a) - The intimation letters sent to the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as the assessees, under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), after making certain adjustments to the total income returned by them and demanding additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Act, are under challenge in these writ petitions. - We are, of the view that the adjustment on the second issue of relief under section 80-I fell within the ambit of section 143(1)(a) of the Act read with the first proviso thereto and the action of the Assessing Officer to that extent was valid in law
-
2002 (8) TMI 61
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the rasoi expenses amounting to Rs. 4,000 in branch at Gondia claimed by the assessee as an admissible deduction by holding that it is not in the nature of entertainment expenses covered by section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the hotel expenses amounting to Rs. 12,912 sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the head office claimed by the assessee as an admissible deduction by holding that it is not in the nature of entertainment expenses covered by section 37(2B) of the Income tax Act?" - the questions are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (8) TMI 60
"1. Whether, Tribunal is right in law in holding that the terminal allowance under section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the demolished building is Rs. 1,60,866 and not Rs. 1,10,867 as computed by the Income-tax Officer? - 2. Whether, Tribunal is right in law in holding that only the actually realised value of the scrap and not the value of the scrap as such, which has to be taken into account in computing the terminal allowance?" - The Tribunal has only taken note of the value of the steel trusses, doors and windows and has not said anything about the correctness or otherwise of the estimate made by the Assessing Officer who had valued the scrap at Rs. 50,000. The Assessing Officer had taken a higher figure as he found that there were a number of items of steel windows and doors with the assessee, even after the building was pulled down. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 59
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 41,689 being the interest payable by the assessee to the Income-tax Department under sections 220(2) and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - "1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of the claim of Rs. 41,689 or part thereof, while computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72? - 2. Alternatively, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal justified in law in not allowing the claim of the assessee of Rs. 41,689 within the meaning of section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act?" - we feel that it is not a fit case where we should now go into the controversy, sought to be raised before us by learned counsel for the assessee. - In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd.'s case, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 58
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the submission of the assessee that section 7 Of the Estate Duty Act was not applicable to the facts of this case? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that the life interest of the deceased is not capable of valuation under section 40 and hence cannot be included under section 7?" - both questions are required to be and is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 57
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the sum of Rs. 4,45,305 as capital gains liable to tax arising out of the compensation amount received under the insurance policy on account of damage to the assessee's Sutton Tea Factory building by fire, is valid in law. - Our answer to the question referred is, therefore, in the negative, in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (8) TMI 56
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled to a revenue deduction in respect of customs and excise duty component of the value of the closing stock?" - We, therefore, answer the question referred to us at the instance of the assessee against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue. - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that investment allowance in respect of the incremental cost of the machinery, necessitated by the fluctuation in foreign exchange rates is allowable to the assessee in the respective years in which such cost arose?" - The second question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and, against the Revenue.
-
2002 (8) TMI 55
The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee arises out of the order of the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal of the Revenue and restored the order of the Assessing Officer who had held that in computing the capital base for the purpose of surtax the credit balance in the profit and loss account is to be deducted, and that such balance cannot be treated as reserve. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the credit balance in the profit and loss account can be included on the part of the reserve for the purpose of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964?" - Having regard to the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. and in the case of National Rayon Corporation Ltd., the question which has been referred to us must be, and is, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 54
"(i) Whether, Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 was with jurisdiction when the assessment order had merged with the appellate order dated May 24, 1984, as well as the second appellate order of the Tribunal dated May 15, 1985? - (ii) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the subsidy received by the petitioner from the State Government under the Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme is to be deducted from the cost of machinery and plant and building under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for determining the actual cost for the purposes of depreciation allowance under section 32 of the Act?" - In this case, it is an admitted fact that a part of the construction of the tenements was made by the grant from the State by way of subsidy. The amount spent by the assessee on the construction was only total cost minus the subsidy received. The definition of "actual cost" given in section 43(1) is applicable to sections 28 to 41 of the Act. This includes section 32 which deals with depreciation. The assessee's claim for depreciation for the tenements could therefore only be with reference to the "actual cost" as computed in accordance with section 43(1) of the Act. The Commissioner was, therefore, right in holding that the amount of subsidy should be deducted from the total cost of the construction of the tenements.
-
2002 (8) TMI 53
By this writ petition, the assessee-petitioner has challenged initiation of reassessment proceedings against it for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 by issuing notices under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on March 29, 1990, on multiple grounds including that the notices are barred by time and that there exists no material on the basis of which a satisfaction about escapement of income for the relevant assessment years from tax could be reached. - in my opinion, merely a change of opinion, is not permissible for assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of this case, as noticed above, when the principle regarding computation of depreciation on the acquisition valuation of the asset, i.e., Umaid Bhawan Palace, by the petitioner-company has become final for the periods prior to the period in question, and for the periods subsequent to the period in question, no useful purpose will be served in permitting the Assessing Officer to continue the reassessment proceedings now. - Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the notices for reopening the assessment are set aside and quashed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 52
Appeal To CIT(A) - it is crystal clear that the directions were limited on making fresh assessment or to give effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer while making the fresh assessment has gone beyond the directions given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and had valued the jewellery which was seized by the Customs authority from the bank locker of Smt. Radha Devi, the mother of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the second round has confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer without realising the fact that the direction in the first round of proceeding was limited. - When the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the point of first round was limited for valuing the jewellery which was available to the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment made on March 27, 1991, and when the jewellery which was found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi was not the subject-matter of the original assessment and there was no direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of the jewellery found in the locker of Smt. Radha Devi. - The Assessing Officer has committed error, in fresh assessment, in taxing the jewellery which was not the subject-matter of the original assessment. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 51
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 68 are not attracted in respect of the alleged capital contribution of Rs. 60,000 and in deleting the relevant addition while the account copy in the books of the firm shows the amount of Rs. 60,000 as cash received contrary to the explanation offered during the course of assessment proceedings?" - We find that the Appellate Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 60,000 was not the undisclosed income of the firm on the basis of the materials available on record and on the basis of the statement of Thiagarajan, which was believed and accepted by the Tribunal, we are, therefore, of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of the material is a pure finding of fact and does not call for any interference by this court. We do not find any question of law that arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in favour A of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (8) TMI 50
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order under section 263, dated March 19, 1991, was barred by limitation and consequently cancelling the order under section 263?" - It is true that the Commissioner of Income-tax has the power to revise the order of the Assessing Officer on the issues which are not taken in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), but if the limitation has expired, the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot revise the original order of the Income-tax Officer beyond the period of limitation. The period of limitation in this case is two years from the date of the order sought to be revised, i.e., December 16, 1988, but the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263, dated February 26, 1992, i.e., beyond two years. - Considering these facts, no interference is called for in the order of the Tribunal.
-
2002 (8) TMI 49
"Whether Tribunal is correct in holding that the reopening of the assessment for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 under section 147(a) of the Act is correct, valid, and is not time barred?" - The necessary sanction for the reopening had been obtained. The opinion of the appropriate authority regarding the need for the reopening had been recorded as found by the Tribunal. The reopening was clearly not barred by time. - As regards the assessee's claim that the reopening was not warranted as the amount of addition was less than Rs. 50,000, though the addition was less than Rs. 50,000 in a year, that was, part of the spread over of the higher amount which the assessee was found to have invested in the construction and that amount of Rs. 32,500 was part of the larger sum of Rs. 1,30,000. Having regard to that fact and the fact that an appeal had been filed by the Revenue questioning the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which had reduced the figure below Rs. 50,000 and that appeal was pending at that time, we are unable to uphold the submission made by the assessee that the reopening of the assessment was not permissible under section 149(2) of the Act.
-
2002 (8) TMI 48
Whether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on the incremental cost by reason of foreign exchange fluctuation - whether in computing the amount of deduction admissible under rule 6D read with section 37(3), the ceiling should be applied to the aggregate of all the tours made by the persons during the previous year and not to individual tours - whether the expenditure incurred for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a director could be treated as part of remuneration for purpose of computing the disallowance under section 40(c). - whether part of the entertainment expenditure attributable to the staff of the assessee was to be excluded from the disallowance under section 37(2A) of the Act. Section 37(2A) of the Act was amended by adding Explanation thereunder by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1976.
-
2002 (8) TMI 47
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the receipts from service charges are liable to be assessed as income from 'other sources' and not 'income from house property'?" - In making such computations, there is no room for adding other amounts received by the owner of the building as representing the value of the service charges rendered by him to his tenants as income from house property, when neither the tenant nor the owner intended payment of such service charges to be a part of rent payable for the occupation of the premises by the tenants. - The question referred to us is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
....
|
9911796707
