Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 305 of 305 Records
-
1994 (12) TMI 5
Agricultural Land, Deduction Of Debts In Computing Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... essee could not have either claimed benefit under clause (xxiii) as respects the shares or under clause (iva) as respects the agricultural land or have claimed the exemption by proportionately dividing the extent of the value of exemption under clause (xxiii) or (iva). At the relevant time, exemption was available under section 5(1)(xxiii) of the Act as well as under section 5(1)(iva) of the Act. Section 5(1A) of the Act put a limit of Rs. 1,50,000 to cover both the clauses under which the assessee could claim exemption. If exemption is otherwise available and certain assets were available which secured the debts, the assessee could claim a total exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 and also deduction of the secured debts. He has not, for the said reason, asked for an exemption by traversing twice under the same provision of law with respect to the same property. We are satisfied that the Tribunal has committed no mistake in taking the above view. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1994 (12) TMI 4
Assessment Year, Balancing Charge, Financial Year ... ... ... ... ..... r decision in Okara Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1985 154 ITR 493 (Delhi). In the said case various amounts were paid for the acquisition on several dates, however, this court held that the money became payable, i.e., the balancing charge, having determined in the previous year relevant to the particular assessment year, it was in that year the question of its inclusion in the total income of the assessee would come up for consideration. The Bench also clearly stated that the year of inclusion of the balancing charge as per section 41(2) had to be on the basis when the money payable became due and not on the basis of the date of sale of the assets and that the money payable could be held to have become due only when the same was ascertained. In view of these two decisions of this court, it is unnecessary for us to consider the question further. The question referred to us is accordingly answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1994 (12) TMI 3
Determination Of Fair Market Value Of Property, In Part, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government
-
1994 (12) TMI 2
Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... Special Bench went in favour of the assessee, and, as regards the item concerning Rs. 13,58,390, the decision went in favour of the Department. After perusing the reference order of the Division Bench and the order of the Special Bench, we are convinced that the order of the Special Bench is clearly unsustainable in law. When the matter referred to the Special Bench concerned only with the deduction of Rs. 3,50,644, it was not open to the Special Bench to go into the question of the alleged claim for deduction of Rs. 13,58,390, which did not find a place in the reference order. We, therefore, allow this writ petition, set aside the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein, made in I. T. A. No. 89/Hyd. of 1987, dated May 3, 1990, and remand the matter to the Division Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, with a direction to re-entertain the appeal and dispose of the matter in accordance with law, after due notice to both sides.
-
1994 (12) TMI 1
Section 171(1) - Whether it could thereafter be claimed that income from the property of the family had to be divided equally among the HUF members and the adopted son for purposes of Income-Tax assessment - even in the case of alienation in favour of a stranger, the court insisted on compliance with section 171
....
|