|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 355 of 355 Records
-
1995 (1) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, General Public Utility, Not Involving The Carrying On Of Any Activity For Profit
-
1995 (1) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
A Firm, Industrial Company, Partner In Firm, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... e income of the assessee should be taken into consideration for income-tax purpose, since 60 per cent. was exempted. It was further submitted that the 40 per cent. of the income is the entire 100 per cent. income of the assessee in the assessment years under consideration. Therefore, it was pointed out that the income is not less than 51 per cent. of the total income, as stated in the above Explanation. Therefore, the assessee satisfied both these conditions and, therefore, the assessee is an industrial company for the relief of taxation. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are supported by the decision in CIT v. A. Dharma Reddy 1969 73 ITR 751 (SC) and also as per the Explanation to section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act for the relevant assessment years under consideration. Therefore, we consider that no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal in all these assessment years under consideration. Accordingly, these tax case petitions are dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Application For Revision ... ... ... ... ..... n assessee, the application must be made within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to him or the date on which he otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earlier. Admittedly, the application under section 264 of the Act was filed beyond one year and there was a delay of 1 1/2 months in filing the application. It was stated in the application seeking condonation of delay that the delay occurred because the assessee was not given proper legal guidance when he received the assessment orders. It was, however, pointed out by Mr. B. Gupta, learned counsel for the Revenue, that the assessee is not only having the services of a chartered accountant but also of a tax consultant who was a former Indian Revenue Service person working in the Income-tax Department. The plea, therefore, that the petitioner could not get proper legal guidance cannot be held to be valid. We, therefore, find no error in the impugned order for us to interfere. Dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
High Court, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... ct that the petitioners are pursuing an alternative remedy available to them under law, we decline to go into the matter at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that the respondents may be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioners revision expeditiously. Since there is no inordinate delay, we decline to issue such order. However, we hope and trust the respondents may decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.
-
1995 (1) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Fixed Deposit, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... He claimed deduction of the loan amount borrowed against the fixed deposit receipt under section 2(m)(ii) of the Act. This has been allowed. It is admitted that the amount carried in fixed deposit in this case, was exempted. Therefore, there cannot be a further exemption with regard to the amount of loan borrowed on the basis of the fixed deposit receipt mentioned above. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this order with the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court be transmitted to the Appellate Tribunal. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 10 - PATNA HIGH COURT
High Court, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... rned counsel appearing for the Revenue, however, contended that this judgment of the Supreme Court must be taken as one not decided on the merits. But, we find from the judgment of the Supreme Court in particular the following sentence that their Lordships have also decided the matter on merits We are also not satisfied that there are good and compelling reasons to depart from the view taken in Hirday Narain s case 1970 78 ITR 26 (SC).... We may also mention that the decisions relied on by the Tribunal were also noticed by the Supreme Court. The decision cited in CIT v. S. Balasubramaniam 1984 147 ITR 732 (Mad) on a close scrutiny will show that it is distinguishable on the facts. In view of the above and in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has answered an identical question against the Revenue, applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court the common question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Additional Tax, Question Of Law, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... was not considered but that would not clinch the controversy in its favour. The expression owner used in section 32 of the Act has been considered by taking into account all its phases and aspects. It was held by the courts mentioned above that the owner need not necessarily be a lawful owner entitled to pass on the title of the property to another. What is required for physical purpose under section 32 of the Act is different than to be the owner entitled to pass on the title of the property. We are, therefore, unable to accept the Revenue s argument and in agreement with the decisions mentioned above hold that the assessee was entitled to depreciation as held by the Income-tax Officer. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in the affirmative by holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance on the buildings. On a proper application being moved, the request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court will be considered. MRS. RUMA PAL J.---I agree.
-
1995 (1) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... out that the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee failed to discharge the burden on him under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) was a question purely based on facts and no legal question has arisen from the same. Therefore, the same could not be referred for decision. In this case, therefore, we find that there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee and in view of the facts of the case no legal question arises for reference to the High Court and the order passed by the learned Tribunal is fully justified. This view finds support from the cases reported as CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose 1987 165 ITR 14 (SC) CIT v. K. R. Sadayappan 1990 185 ITR 49 (SC) and Brij Mohan v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 1 (SC). Thus, we do not find any merit in the two petitions in the aforesaid two miscellaneous cases, and both are dismissed. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 96 of 1988 which shall govern the disposal of that case as well.
-
1995 (1) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... overnment servant concerned but also pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by him in the appeal. As there has been violation of principles of natural justice to afford opportunity of hearing, it would be just and proper to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, to rehear the matter and pass fresh orders. Another reason which has led me to direct rehearing of the case is that the Commissioner of Income-tax while passing the order has made the observations referred to above. This leaves no option to the Income-tax Officer. The direction given is in positive terms to the Income-tax Officer to decide in a particular manner. This would also vitiate the principles of natural justice. Thus, taking all these aspects in view, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, and the further orders passed by the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of the above order are quashed and the case is sent back to the Commissioner of Income-tax for rehearing.
-
1995 (1) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... amendment had come into force on August 21, 1980, before the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by its order dated September 9, 1980, i.e., the Tribunal has passed the order without taking notice of the amendment and thus has fallen in error. This alone, in our opinion, is a good ground to remit the matter to the Tribunal for a rehearing and disposal in accordance with law. The contention as to whether the compulsory deposit is in the nature of an impost and thus should be treated as a liability until it becomes available for refund or is a deposit under a law made in exercise of the eminent domain need not be decided at this stage. The assessee, if so advised can raise the said plea before the Tribunal and if there is any need after the order in appeal by the Tribunal, the assessee may seek a reference in accordance with law. As a result of the above, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for a re-hearing and disposal in accordance with law. No costs. Order accordingly.
-
1995 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Accounting/Assessment Year - Held that assessee is entitled to the deduction for the provision made by the assessee for gratuity payable to its employees - Tribunal is justified in taking into consideration the completed years of service of the employees for quantification of liability - Held that the exact amount of which deduction is to be given has to be determined before the deduction is actually made
-
1995 (1) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Tribunal having declined to impose a penalty upon the assessee because it had not been established that the assessee had deliberately concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, it could not have added to the assessee's total income, for the purposes of section 104 - The provisions of section 104 are quasi-penal in nature and what would apply in regard to a penalty would also apply in regard to these provisions. These were conclusions on the facts - no question of law arise
-
1995 (1) TMI 3 - SC ORDER
Held that the issuance of a notice within the period of limitation gives jurisdiction to the Income-tax Officer to proceed to make the reassessment
-
1995 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Interpretation of the provisions of section 154(7) - held that that the word "any" in the expression "order sought to be amended" would mean even the rectified order
-
1995 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Revenue was directed to pay to the respondent interest on the amount of Rs. 84,562 from September 7, 1969, to August 14, 1973, at the rate of six per cent. per annum under section 244(1) - in case fresh assessments are made, refund becomes due only after fresh assessment - hence interest on that refund can be claimed only from date of fresh assessment
....
|
