Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1992 1992 (10) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 226 of 226 Records
-
1992 (10) TMI 6
Partner In Firm, Passing Of Property, Retirement Of Partner, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... ll. The late Shri J. M. Thakar was a leading advocate when he died. So were the other partners. All the above relevant factors have not been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has mainly gone on the principle that, even a firm of professionals can have goodwill. Its approach to factual effects has been rather negative. It was that both Shri J. M. Thakar and Shri C. J. Thakar were leading advocates and, therefore, it cannot be said that the firm did not have any goodwill. The principle that a firm of professionals can, in a given case, have goodwill cannot be disputed. But the case cannot be decided only on that principle. The basic facts and circumstances of each case will determine the point. They have not been considered. We do not notice any material on the basis of which the finding about the existence of goodwill of the firm could have been reached. Hence, both the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 5
High Court, Income Tax Act, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... or the subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income-tax Officer could not have withheld the relief for the subsequent years. See Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1980 123 ITR 669 . Hence, the approach of the Tribunal on all the counts has been perfectly legal. Question No. 2 thus will have to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Our attention was drawn to the recent decision in the case of CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. 1991 192 ITR 155 (SC) in support of a contention that even on the merits the point stood concluded in favour of the assessee. It is unnecessary to go into this aspect of the matter in view of our above answer to question No. 2. In the result, question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 1 need not be answered. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 4
Computation Of Capital, Fixed Deposit, Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal. We see no infirmity in the legal proposition as set down by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order which has been affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. No law has been shown to us that unless money invested in the F. D. Rs. is actually used for the business purposes that cannot be included in the computation of the capital employed. The reasoning given by the Income-tax Officer was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. So far as the further working done by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is concerned, that has not been challenged as such and no reference has been made in regard to that and, therefore, we refrain from making any comments as to the correctness of the further working done by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order. For the reasons, we answer the abovementioned question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 3
Plant and machinery had been purchased subsequent to the date of devaluation of Indian currency - money was deposited in U.K. prior to devaluation - held that rupee value after depreciation is to be adopted for actual cost for purposes of depreciation & development rebate
-
1992 (10) TMI 2
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the appeals once again to the file of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-I, Calcutta, for passing fresh orders under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after making further investigation
-
1992 (10) TMI 1
Scientific Research - controversy with regard to the retrospective amendment of section 80J - computation of business income for purposes of income-tax - allowance of depreciation - deduction u/s35(2)(iv)
....
|
|