Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1991 1991 (10) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 227 of 227 Records
-
1991 (10) TMI 7
New Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area ... ... ... ... ..... 976-77, it was eight years, and so on and so forth. The delay was, thus, inordinate and the grounds on which condonation of delay was sought in preferring the petition under section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner were not sufficient to grant the prayer of the appellants. Ignorance of law was pleaded as the first ground for claiming condonation of delay. Ignorance of law is no excuse. The appellants have failed to satisfactorily explain the cause for delay and the Commissioner of Income-tax, therefore, rightly held that, in the absence of proper explanation for the delay, the request for condonation of delay could not be granted. The learned single judge, therefore, rightly held that the exercise of discretion by the Commissioner of Income-tax in refusing to condone the delay did not merit any interference. Thus, for what we have said above, we find that there is no cause to interfere. The writ appeals fail and are dismissed. There shall, however, no order as to costs.
-
1991 (10) TMI 6
Assessment, Residuary Legatee, Specific Legatee, Wealth Tax, Will, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... already entertained the petition and issued a rule nisi and interim order affidavits have been filed and the matter heard at length. It is well established that the court would not in the circumstances be justified in rejecting the petition on the ground of alternative remedy. ( L. Hirday Narain v. ITO 1970 78 ITR 26 (SC) AIR 1971 SC 33). In any event, the assessments of the residuary estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee (deceased) in the hands of Mahamaya and the petitioners before completion of the administration of the estate is without jurisdiction and the court would not be justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was available (Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, AIR 1987 SC 2186). The impugned assessment orders for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1975-76 and all proceedings thereunder are accordingly liable to be set aside and are hereby quashed. The rule nisi is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (10) TMI 5
Voluntary Disclosure, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... djudication. The orders of the Tribunal might perhaps have some relevance in appreciating the case of the respondent, as set out in annexure G complaint. It cannot be readily assumed that the allegations against the petitioners are unsustainable. Some important questions of law are involved in the case. The factual aspects also call for detailed consideration. Having failed before the court below to get an order of discharge and after having been unsuccessful to get an order from this court to quash the proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 882 of 1988, it is too late for the petitioners now to contend that the proceedings now pending before the court below amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and, therefore, should be quashed. The complaint has to be enquired into and decided on its merits. Interference now under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would neither be just, legal or proper. The criminal miscellaneous case is accordingly dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 4
Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... every month during which the default continues Provided that, before levying any such penalty, the person shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The learned single judge held that section 17A(3) of the Act contemplates levy of penalty for non-payment of admitted tax or for non-payment of part of the admitted tax at the time of filing the return. On a plain reading of the section 17A(3) of the Act, we concur with the learned single judge (see 1991 190 ITR 385), in the reasoning and conclusion aforesaid. The order levying penalty, exhibit P-4, and the order confirming the same, exhibit P-6, to the extent they uphold the penalty levied under section 17A(3) of the Act for the belated filing of the return, are unjustified in law. The learned single judge (see 1991 190 ITR 385) was justified in quashing exhibits P-4 and P-6. We concur with the learned single judge (see 1991 190 ITR 385), and hold that the appeal is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 3
Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that relief under section 80G is admissible in respect of donations in kind also - held that deduction is not entitled u/s 80G to donation made in kind
-
1991 (10) TMI 2
Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that half share of the income in respect of the estate of late Shri Balabhai Damodardas was not taxable in the hands of the assessee when the estate was being administered by Shri Sakarlal Balabhai, having regard to the provisions of section 168 - it is difficult to accept the conclusion of the High Court that the administration must be deemed to have come to an end in the face of the factual findings
-
1991 (10) TMI 1
Claim for registration as firm - Whether there was a valid partnership under annexure 'A' between Shri Chandrakant, as the karta of the Hindu undivided family and Shri Naresh, a member of the family - firm consisting of Hindu undivided family and a member can claim for registration even if member has not contributed any capital as a partner
....
|
|