Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1995 1995 (12) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 305 of 305 Records
-
1995 (12) TMI 5
Attributable To ... ... ... ... ..... held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(26B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only in respect of the housing schemes executed pursuant to the main object No. 1 of the memorandum of association of the assessee for the promotion of the interests of the members of the Scheduled Castes and that no exemption can be claimed under that provision in respect of the income which accrued from carrying on the activities under the main objects Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the memorandum of association of the assessee and from the house building activity, in so far as that relates to the people of backward classes and other categories. Following our order dated, December 6, 1995, pertaining to the assessment year 1979-80, the question referred at the instance of the assessee is partly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the question referred at the instance of the Revenue is answered in the affirmative in terms of our order dated December 6, 1995.
-
1995 (12) TMI 4
Assessment Year, Capital Or Revenue Receipt, High Court Judgment ... ... ... ... ..... rom all the main objects is inextricably mixed up, then the assessee will not be entitled to exemption even in respect of the income earned from the housing schemes, executed for the benefit of the members of the Scheduled Castes. The assessee will do better if it gets the main object No. 1 suitably amended to make it consistent with the provisions of section 10, clause (26B), of the Income-tax Act. Question No. 1 is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and question No. 2 is partly answered in favour of the assessee to the effect that the income attributable to the housing schemes executed under the main object No. 1, for promoting the interests of the members of the Scheduled Castes only will be entitled to exemption, provided that is severable from the income accruing to the assessee from other main objects. Let the record of the case be sent down to the Appellate Tribunal to pass an order conformably to our judgment.
-
1995 (12) TMI 3
Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership ... ... ... ... ..... the Tribunal for answer of this court. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the records. The view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified for the reasons that the right of a partner to share the profits of the firm is a property, but the retiring partner has no right of a share in future profits as he became non-existent. In the present case, it is pointed out that the minor has a credit balance of Rs. 27,290 in his capital account in the firm and he withdrew Rs. 20,000 on November 3,1975, and he was also paid the interest on the balance to his credit. The balance amount was also with drawn subsequently. Therefore, there was no consideration whatsoever. The same view has been taken by the Tribunal also and it has been the view of the aforesaid two High Courts. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. We do not find any merit in this reference and hence the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1995 (12) TMI 2
Business Loss, Finding Of Fact, Main Test ... ... ... ... ..... 1961. The assessee s claim is accordingly accepted. The genuineness of the loss not being doubted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we find substance in the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal, despite notice having been given to the concerned employees, that the assessee having lost hope of the recovery should claim deductions of such losses, pilferage, etc. The finding of the Tribunal that there was no hope of recovery is essentially a finding of fact and no question of law arises therefrom. From the mere fact that the notice was given, no inference could legitimately be drawn that hope of recovery was not lost by the assessee. Question No. 3 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The record of these two sets of references (three on behalf of the assessee and three on behalf of the Revenue) be sent down to the Appellate Tribunal within fifteen days to enable it to pass orders conformably to our order.
-
1995 (12) TMI 1
AOP - Where a person is taxed wrongfully, he is no doubt entitled to be relieved of it in accordance with law - Merely because a wrong person is taxed with respect to a particular income, the Assessing Officer is not precluded from taxing the right person with respect to that income
....
|
|