Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2002 2002 (8) 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 501 to 520 of 525 Records

• 2002 (8) TMI 26
  

  The only issue for our consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in restoring the view taken by the Income-tax Officer regarding disallowance of the expenses accrued on account of agreement with the State Government regarding restoration of the land in its original shape. - Considering the clause in the agreement, i.e., as far as possible the lessee shall restore the surface land so used to its original condition, the moment the assessee digs pits, he is bound under the agreement to fill those pits and the liability does accrue on the date when the pits are dug. Therefore, in our view, the Tribunal has committed an error in disallowing the claim of the assessee in the year in hand, i.e., 1991-92. We agree with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the moment the assessee digs the pits, the liability does arise and it is entitled for deduction of the expenses which it is supposed to incur for filling those pits, as the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting. – Question answered in negative - we restore the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal stands allowed.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 25
  

  Remuneration to Employees - If the payment has been made to run the business which is necessary to run the business the payment is for the purpose of the business. It is also pertinent to note that the assessee-corporation is a public undertaking of the State. The payment has not been made to any friend or relation of the directors. The payment has been made to the workers with the commercial expediency. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment has been made with the object to run the business. The payment of ex gratia bonus is for the purpose of the business and that should not be disallowed.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 24
  

  Offences - Prosecution - In the instant case, it is the admitted case of the parties that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has waived the penalty. The Revenue filed an application for making reference to this court. - I am of the considered opinion that the courts below have rightly allowed the application of the assessee as the asses see cannot be held guilty under sections 276C and 277 of the Act, in view of the findings recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 23
  

  "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-club was not a charitable institution within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee was entitled to exemption either under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, or under the principle of mutuality?" – fist question is answered in negative and in favour of assessee – in respect of second question income of the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the tax Act, 1961, read with section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 22
  

  "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing claim under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, notwithstanding the fact that the business was not wholly done with the members only?" - we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 21
  

  Mistake – rectification - "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the issue before him was debatable and hence could not be considered as a mistake apparent on the record rectifiable under section 154, despite the fact that when the Tribunal decided the appeal, the issue was no longer debatable as far as the State of Rajasthan was concerned, in view of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Shiv Raj Bhatia?" - we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 20
  

  Firm – registration - "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the firm was not a genuine one on the strength of the statement made by the lady partner?" - we answer the questions referred to us by the Tribunal for our opinion in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 19
  

  Offences - Prosecution - Charge under section 278B - The contention of counsel for the applicants is that the penal provision, i.e., section 276E of the Act, has been removed from the statute by an amendment dated April 1, 1989, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. In the case on hand, the complaint against the applicants was filed only a day before the said omission. - In the present case, no saving clause, has been prescribed in the Amendment Act. Therefore, applying the dictum as held by the Supreme Court, present prosecution against the applicants is not permissible for imposing punishment under section 276E of the Act. Therefore, the orders passed by the appellate court dated August 18, 1999, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1995 remanding the case back as well as the judgment dated June 27, 1995, delivered in Criminal Case No. 02 of 1986, are liable to be set aside and the same are, accordingly, set aside. However, the Income-tax Department is free to proceed against the applicants under section 271E of the provisions of the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 18
  

  Search proceedings are under challenge before us in this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution. - notice under section 158BC was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Amritsar, calling upon the petitioner-assessee to file his return for the block period. - the search was conducted in July, 1999, and the writ petition was filed after a delay of more than two years. No explanation much less a satisfactory has been furnished for this delay. For this reason as well, we are not inclined to interfere with the search proceedings at this stage. As already observed, the petitioner may take up all the pleas in the appeal pending before the appellate authority. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 17
  

  Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" - we find that the assessee had given a plausible and bona fide explanation for its having failed to file the return of income and, that the said finding of fact does not call for any interference.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 16
  

  Penalty under section 272A(2)(c) - "Whether, Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of token penalty, below the minimum prescribed by the Act by observing that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the annual return and was the Tribunal right in drawing a right inference from the Central Board of Direct Taxes circulars?" – The penalty under section 272A(2)(c) cannot be levied in a routine manner. The discretion vested with the authority is to be exercised judiciously on consideration of all the relevant circumstances. A bona fide breach cannot lead to a penalty under section 272A(2)(c)." - The question is decided in affirmative and in favour of the respondent Deputy Housing Commissioner, and against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 15
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - "Whether, Tribunal was right in holding that the firm, M/s. Khanna and Hari Raj, had a goodwill which passed on the death of Shri Shivraj Singh?" - the finding recorded by the Appellate Controller on the issue of goodwill of the firm-M/s. Khanna and Hari Raj, cannot be termed as perverse

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 14
  

  Cost of construction - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in applying Rajasthan PWD rates for working out the cost of construction of house property for income-tax purpose, instead of CPWD rates?" - What should be the value of the construction, is basically a question of fact and that depends upon the material used, the location and the quality of construction. Therefore, straightaway, applying the PWD rate or CPWD rate is not justified in case of each house. What should be the cost of construction, the Tribunal has applied the rate of PWD that is on the facts and circumstances of this case, which is part of the finding of fact No interference is called for.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 13
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Whether, Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even after giving clear finding that the assessee made a punishable default u/s 271(1)(c)? – Whether Tribunal is justified in cancelling the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that under similar circumstances no penalty was levied in the case of a sister concern?" - reading of the order of the Tribunal clearly shows that respondent-assessee agreed for the addition and then had withdrawn the appeal to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigation on a clear understanding given by the Revenue that no penalty would be levied -The said finding is a finding of fact. Thus, in our opinion, no referable question arises.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 12
  

  "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount received by the assessee on surrender of tenancy rights, amounting to Rs.6,83,017, is a casual and non-recurring receipt under section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, not chargeable to tax?"

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 11
  
  The High Court of Karnataka ruled that kist amount payable by the assessee to the State Government, which was not actually paid, cannot be disallowed under section 43B of the Income-tax Act. The court cited a previous judgment stating that only statutory liabilities like tax, duty, cess, or fee fall under section 43B, and kist/rental does not qualify. The appeal was dismissed based on this reasoning.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 10
  

  Assessee, as a trustee of Rangraj Keshrimal Family Trust, was a partner in a partnership firm named, M/s. Darshan Traders.- "Whether Tribunal is right in law in holding that the income earned from the firm belonged to Trust and thereby deleting the said income from the income of the assessee?" - when the assessee was representing Trust in a partnership firm and when income allocated to the assessee as a partner had in fact been assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries, it could not have been said to be the income of the assessee. – AO was not right in holding that the share of income received by the assessee from firm was income of the assessee especially when M/s. Darshan Traders was a firm duly registered and the said firm had also been assessed. It is also pertinent to note that there was no dispute with regard to the genuineness of the firm and the trust – Thus Tribunal was right in deleting the income, which was allocated to the assessee as trustee of the Trust – Question answered in positive

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 9
  

  Depreciation to building, machinery and plant under section 32 - "Whether the Tribunal was right in treating sanitary fittings as plant installed in the cinema hall? - we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, and hold that the sanitary pipeline fittings fell in the category of plant. Thus, the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent.

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 8
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – concealment of income - assessee had made payment on certain dates when no sufficient cash was available with the assessee - The explanation of the assessee that it had borrowed certain funds and instructed the accountant to pass the necessary credit entries in its books of account remains a bald averment in the absence of the details - Tribunal, have come to the conclusion that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus which lay on it no infirmity can be found - there are no facts which would prima facie go to show that the assessee deserves a second innings - Tribunal was right in law in upholding the penalty

  ---

• 2002 (8) TMI 7
  

  Payment of the development charges - assessee paid a sum of ₹ 25 lakhs for development purposes for the purpose of becoming a member of Stock Exchange - assessee's contention was that the amount is by way of revenue expenditure - Secondly, the assessee submitted that it was entitled to dissect the revenue expenditure of ₹ 25 lakhs, into 10 equal parts of ₹ 2,50,000 each, and claim deduction thereof in 10 successive assessment years - No doubt a very enduring benefit was accruing to the assessee on payment of the development charges. That would render the expenditure as a capital one. Moreover, we are quite unaware of any authority given in the Income-tax Act, for carrying forward revenue expenditure, after dividing it, as per the assessee's own wish, into subsequent assessment years. – Thus petition is dismissed

  ---

1 ....222324252627