Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1994 1994 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 261 to 268 of 268 Records

• 1994 (2) TMI 8 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  

  Addition To Income, Undisclosed Sources

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the said authorities for arriving at such a finding. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it would be too remote and far-fetched, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to hold that the vouchers produced by the assessee were not correct and that they were fabricated evidence and, accordingly, we hold that there is no direct nexus between the facts found and the conclusion therefrom. It is settled law that tax authorities, having relied on one part of a transaction, cannot reject the other part of the same transaction. In the instant case, the expenditure shown to have been incurred by the assessee having been accepted by the income-tax authorities, there was no justification, on the facts and circumstances of the case, not to accept the receipt as disclosed by the assessee. In view of the aforesaid findings, we answer the questions of law reframed by us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We, however, make no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1994 (2) TMI 7 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  

  Income Tax Act, Question Of Law

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n the absence of the assessee. We have heard Mr. D. K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, who has strenuously taken us through the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and also the income-tax authorities. Mr. Talukdar has also submitted that the questions sought for reference to this court for its opinion are questions of law. On a perusal of the records of the case and also the three questions proposed by the Revenue, we, however, cannot agree to the submissions made by learned counsel representing the Revenue. In our opinion, the findings and conclusion of the Tribunal are pure questions of fact to the effect that the imposition of penalty in the case of the assessee was not justified. The aforesaid conclusion of facts does not give rise to any question of law. Hence, in our opinion, it is not a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and accordingly, we reject this application. We make no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1994 (2) TMI 6 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment Order, Best Judgment Assessment, Income Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rected certain modifications as per exhibit P-7. In the aforesaid background, we do not find our way to interfere with exhibit P-7 revisional order passed by the Board of Revenue. In fact, the learned judge, it appears to us, has very anxiously considered all the points urged before him, even though the points advanced are purely questions of fact which are not normally gone into in the present proceeding. Further, the jurisdiction of the third respondent, Board of Revenue, under section 34, it appears to us, has been exercised in a reasonable and proper manner. We have no hesitation to agree with the observation of the learned single judge that the findings entered by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are neither perverse nor unsupported by any materials. We feel the conclusions arrived at by the learned single judge are sound, fair and reasonable and so they are only to be approved without any reserve. We do so. We see no merit in this writ appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

  ---

• 1994 (2) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Assessing Officer, Closing Stock, Question Of Law

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ount. The same method was followed for the succeeding year. He started with the profit and loss account of the assessee and made an addition towards the discrepancy in the valuation of the closing stock. The profit and loss account naturally reflects the opening balance for that year. Because of the enhancement of the closing balance for the earlier year, the Assessing Officer made appropriate change on that account. In other words, the Assessing Officer started with the opening balance for the year 1976-77, as found in the balance-sheet, and made an addition of Rs. 63,880. This would clearly indicate that the opening balance had not been ignored as contended by learned counsel for the applicant. The assessee has followed the cost method for valuation of opening and closing balances. The Assessing Officer has followed the same method. In these circumstances, we are unable to agree that any question of law, as suggested, arises for consideration. The application is dismissed.

  ---

• 1994 (2) TMI 4 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Income From Undisclosed Sources

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... smissed. It is clarified that if there is no stay from the appellate authority constituted under the provisions of the Act, the respondents shall be entitled to recover the amount due from the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requests that the stay granted by the first appellate court should be directed to continue for a further period of 15 days so as to enable the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. Both the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable. In fact, interim relief should not have been granted by the courts below in view of the numerous pronouncements of the Supreme Court and of this court on this point. The Income-tax Department cannot be restrained from recovering the dues after the assessment order has been passed. Granting of such relief would amount to nullifying the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the same cannot be granted and it is hereby rejected.

  ---

• 1994 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Assessee-company claimed that the balance of the demand that had remained unpaid was a debt owed by it and should be allowed as a deduction while computing its net wealth - held that deductions claimed were allowable in computing the net wealth of the assessee-companies because deductions do not fall within the exclusionary part contained in section 2(m)(iii)

  ---

• 1994 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Mere technical violation or merely because the order is wrong and the action not falling under the above enumerated instances, disciplinary action is not warranted - appeal of revenue is allowed, the order of the Tribunal is set aside, the disciplinary inquiry against the respondent shall proceed unhindered and expeditiously. It is in the interest of everyone concerned that the truth or otherwise of the charges is determined at the earliest

  ---

• 1994 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the interpretation of section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption of Rs. 70,000 invested by her in National Defence Certificates and Defence Deposit Certificates in addition to the overall exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 granted to her by the Wealth-tax Officer, under section 5(1)

  ---

1 ....1011121314