|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 525 Records
-
2002 (8) TMI 46
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials to hold that the sum of Rs. 1,46,950 claimed to be amount withheld by the Indian Railways for certain past damages and losses is an admissible deduction? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the amount of Rs. 1,46,950 actually represented amounts withheld and not realisable by the assessee and hence admissible as a deduction?" - we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 45
New Industrial Undertaking - Special Deduction u/s 80J & 80HH - "(i) Whether, the assessee-company was eligible for deduction under section 80J of the Income tax Act, 1961, and the assessee's undertaking could be held to be manufacturing or producing articles within the meaning of section 80J?" - "Whether, assessee-company was eligible for deduction under sections 80J and 80HH of the Act and the assessee's undertaking could be held to be manufacturing or producing articles within the meaning of sections 80J and 80HH for the assessment years in question? - Whether, Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to consider the assessee's claim for investment allowance for the assessment years in question, for being allowed provided all other conditions laid down in that section were satisfied? - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was eligible for deductions under sections 80J and 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessee's undertaking could be held to be manufacturing or producing articles within the meaning of sections 80J and 80HH?"
-
2002 (8) TMI 44
The only question that falls for consideration in the reference is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to revise the assessment for the year 1980-81. - We have perused the appellate order which was produced before us and even a cursory glance at the same suggests that the issues regarding the allow able deduction under sections 35B, 80J and 80HH have been thoroughly checked by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the findings have been given thereupon. It is clear from the express language of section 263 that issues on which the appellate authority had already deliberated the matter could not be reopened by way of revision. - we answer the question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 43
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of the amended rule 5 which came into force on April 2, 1983, would be applicable to the assessment year 1983-84 also and the assessee would be entitled to the enhanced depreciation as pro vided in the said amended rules?" - The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 42
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in admitting the additional ground raised by the Revenue? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the investment allowance already allowed for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82 was rightly withdrawn?" – both questions referred is, therefore, also answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 41
Whether, Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 75,706 being salary paid to the drivers should be taken into account for the purpose of computing the disallowance under section 37(3A) - The second question is whether, Tribunal was right in holding that the reimbursement of the medical expenses made to the director/divisional managers/secretary of the company should be taken into account for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 40(c)/40A(5). - The third question is whether Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 42,345 out of the expenses incurred on the dealers' conference, annual general meeting, providing food to the visitors was entertainment expenses under section 37(2A) - The fourth question is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the market value of the building as on January 1, 1964, should be computed on the basis of the rent capitalisation method for the purpose of section 55A of the Income-tax Act in preference to the estimated value submitted by the registered valuer.
-
2002 (8) TMI 40
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction admissible to the assessee under section 80HHC is nil?" - In this case, the assessee admittedly had not earned any profits from the export of the marine products. On the other hand, it had suffered a loss. The deduction permissible under section 80HHC is only a deduction of the profits of the assessee from the export of the goods or merchandise. By the very terms of section 80HHC, it is clear that the assessee was not entitled to any benefit thereunder in the absence of any profits. - The question referred to us therefore is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2002 (8) TMI 39
Search and seizure - "Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in its wisdom to hold that entries reflected in the regular books of account cannot be considered for the block assessment period? - Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting additions by holding that the assessee had discharged its onus by producing the creditors? - Whether it can be said that the mere production of creditors is sufficient to discharge the onus of the assessee and the creditworthiness/paying capacity is of no relevancy at all? - Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions without rejecting the findings of the Assessing Officer with regard to the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions? - Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate rribunal was justified in not applying the ratio in the case of Shankar Industries v. CIT as decided by the court to the present matter?" - the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 38
Search And Seizure - Block Assessment - Cash Credits - valuation of the constructed building - Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in its wisdom to apply the Rajasthan PWD rates for working out the cost of construction of the said property for income-tax purpose, instead of CPWD rates? - Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,400 by holding that when entries find place in the regular cash book, then no addition can be made in the block assessment until there is evidence to the contrary? - Whether the addition on the basis of examination of the regular books of account seized during the course of search is out of the purview of the block assessments?" - the appeal is partly allowed
-
2002 (8) TMI 37
Jurisdiction To Levy Penalty - whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) having held that the law for the levy of the penalty is as it stood on the date when the penalty was imposed, that is as amended with effect from April 1, 1976. – The first question is answered 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 the penalty under section 271(1)(c)(iii) is imposable even though the assessment for the year has resulted in a net loss and there is no total income assessed for the year and there is no tax payable thereon. The second question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (8) TMI 36
Appeal To AAC - Failure To File Return In Time - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the provision of section 249(4) as amended would not apply to the assessee's case is sustainable in law?" - we find that the Tribunal has disposed of the appeals only on the preliminary ground that the relevant assessment years were 1973-74 and 1974-75 and, therefore, it was only the old law which was applicable. On that ground the Tribunal stayed the order of the appellate authority solely taking into consideration the nonpayment of the admitted tax liability and that order was set aside, restoring the earlier order. In our opinion, the Tribunal will have to consider the matter on the merits because the appellate order also shows that the appellate authority has considered the matters on the merits
-
2002 (8) TMI 35
Benami Assessment - Business Run By Minor Son Of Assessee - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the business in the name and style of Rawat Electricals at Ramganjmandi belonged to Shri Gulzarilal Rawat and not to Shri Suresh Kumar Rawat? - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of ₹ 8,000 was not an investment made by Shri Suresh Kumar Rawat in the concern of Rawat Electricals at Ramganjmandi and was made by his father Gulzarilal?" - Normally, in the reference, this court does not interfere in the finding of the Tribunal but the finding of the Tribunal as to whether Rawat Electricals, Ramganjmandi, is independent or benami property of Shri Gulzari Lal Rawat appears to be perverse. In such circumstances, this court should interfere. In our view with the above admitted facts, it cannot be said that the business of Rawat Electricals, Ramganjmandi, is the business of the assessee, Shri Gulzari Lal Rawat. The Tribunal has committed error - we answer both the questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (8) TMI 34
Provision For Motor Vehicles Tax, Amount Deposited As Business Expenditure - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the entire sum of Rs. 2,28,907 being the vehicle tax demanded by the Regional Transport Office was an admissible deduction in the computation of the assessee's income- for the assessment year 1980-81?" - The apex court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT upheld the deduction claimed by the assessee for the amount of sales tax which the assessee was liable to pay during the relevant year and held that the fact that the assessee had taken proceedings before the higher authorities for getting the demand reduced or wiped out did not affect the right of the assessee to claim the deduction during that year. The principle laid down in that decision is attracted to the facts of this case. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (8) TMI 33
Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) have been initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. - The case of the assessee was that he disclosed the concealed income voluntarily, i.e., Rs. 5,92,340, therefore, no penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - When the income has been surrendered after seizure, it cannot be said that the assessee has surrendered the income voluntarily. After seizure of any amount or income that no more remains concealed income for the Department. The explanation given by the assessee was not found satisfactory, therefore, it is a fit case of penalty on deemed concealment. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have rightly imposed the penalty under section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal has committed an error in cancelling the penalty.
-
2002 (8) TMI 32
"1. Whether, Tribunal is justified in law in holding and had valid materials to hold that the assessment made under the Wealth-tax Act on the Hindu undivided family consisting of three brothers was untenable and should be annulled? - 2. Whether, Tribunal is justified in law and had reasonable materials to come to the conclusion that there was a division of the two properties situate in Coimbatore and Ooty in definite portion for purposes of wealth-tax? - 3. Whether, Tribunal is justified in law in holding and had valid materials to hold that the property in Desabandhu Street, Coimbatore, was only the individual property of three brothers held as tenants-in-common and was not held as the property of the joint family of three brothers? - 4. Whether, Tribunal's conclusion that the value of the two houses in Coimbatore and Ooty could be estimated only by the capitalisation of the rent method is a reasonable view and valid on the facts?" – All questions are answered in the affirmative, against the, Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 31
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the business loss brought forward from earlier years should be set off towards the dividend income?" - The adjustment of the carried forward loss under the 1922 Act as also under the 1961 Act is against the profits and gains of business or profession. Neither Act while referring to that adjustment refers to the heads of income. - the amount of dividend would form part of the income from the business of the assessee if the shares were a part of the assessee's trading asset even when the dividend received on those shares had been computed as being part of the assessee's income under the head "Other sources". - "business loss carried forward from earlier years can be set off against the dividend income derived from the shares held as stockin-trade". - The question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2002 (8) TMI 30
Interest on Securities - "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law that the interest on debentures issued by companies other than local authority, company or corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act is not liable to be computed as income under the head 'Interest on securities' ? - 2. Whether interest on debentures in all circumstances is liable to be considered income only when received by the assessee and not when it becomes due?" - our answer to question No. 2 is that since the assessees were adopting the cash system of accounting, interest on debentures of ASE Ltd. and Repropack (P.) Ltd., is liable to be considered as income only when received by the assessees and not when it was due for payment by the respective companies.
-
2002 (8) TMI 29
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of annuities purchased by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation in respect of remuneration received by him from different producers by paying a single premium insurance is includible in the net wealth of the assessee? - Having regard to this, the fact that though the annuities do constitute an asset of the assessee and are, therefore, liable to the Wealth-tax Act, the extent to which that asset is taxable will have to be worked out by applying the proviso under section 5(1)(vi)--an exercise the Tribunal has not done. - We, therefore, remand the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to compute the extent to which the annuities qualify for exemption under section 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth-tax Act.
-
2002 (8) TMI 28
Computation Of Capital Gains - "Whether, having regard to the Explanation to section 49(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the fact that the asset became the property of Shri Sourirajulu on the distribution of assets on the dissolution of the firm within the meaning of sub-section (1)(iii)(b) thereof, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 1 lakh paid by the said Sri Sourirajulu at the time of taking over the business as proprietary business would form part of the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing the capital gains in this case?" - It is evident from the Explanation that where the previous owner of an asset which was sold had himself acquired it by any of the modes set out in section 49(1) in its sub-clauses (i) to (iv) it is the cost incurred by the owner who had owned the asset prior to the previous owner that is required to be taken into account and not the cost incurred by the previous owner at the time he received the asset in any of the modes set out in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of section 49(1). In this case, Sourirajulu paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the retiring partner in 1972 at the time the firm was dissolved. The cost of the acquisition, therefore, is not to be computed by taking that one lakh rupees into account but by only looking to the cost of the acquisition to the firm which was dissolved. The Tribunal was clearly in error in holding otherwise. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (8) TMI 27
In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing notice issued under section 148 proposing to revise its assessment for the assessment year 1997-98. - If the reasons assigned by respondent No. 1 for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act are considered in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is not possible to hold that he did not have any material before him for entertaining a belief that the income of the petitioner had escaped assessment. The judgments relied upon by Shri Jain are clearly distinguishable. In those cases, the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court had the occasion to examine the matter after passing of the final orders and not at the stage of notice. Therefore, the same cannot be made the basis for quashing the notice even before the submission of the reply by the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed
....
|
9911796707
