Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1996 1996 (12) 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 301 to 320 of 320 Records

• 1996 (12) TMI 20 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Advance Tax, Question Of Fact

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... High Court and the Calcutta High Court on the interpretation of section 216 of the Act. Reverting to the facts of this case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal have recorded the finding that the estimation of income and the advance tax as on the date of payment of the first instalment was justified. In view of what we have expressed above, we hold that the provisions of section 216 are not attracted to this case. We, therefore, answer the question, in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is accordingly answered. An oral application is made under section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on behalf of the Revenue to certify that the judgment of this court is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. Since we have not found any conflict in the views of different High Courts and echoed the consensus of judicial opinion, we do not think that it is a fit case for such a certificate. The application is rejected.

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 19 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Law Applicable, One Partner

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... (SC) and CIT v. Sir Hukumchand Mannalal and Co. 1970 78 ITR 18 (SC) would no longer hold good and the Income-tax Officer is entitled to traverse outside the partnership deed in order to find out the benami nature of the partnership firm. In other words, in terms of this Explanation, the partnership firm may be held to be ungenuine if it is having a benamidar (as a partner). This Explanation is added as per the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971, and as on the date of the assessment, the Explanation held the field. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in view of the benami nature of the partnership as held by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee-firm was not entitled to be registered. Having regard to these conclusions, we answer all the three questions referred to above in the negative, that is against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference is answered.

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e assessee in this case. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Lakshmi Industries and Cold Storage Co. (P.) Ltd., In re 1980 124 ITR 828. According to the facts arising in that decision, the name of counsel appearing for the assessee does not find a place in the cause list. Therefore, the Allahabad High Court came to the conclusion that the decision rendered by the High Court without hearing counsel for the assessee would amount to a nullity for want of notice to the assessee. But that is not the case here. So this decision also will not help the assessee to contend that the order passed by this court in the tax case is liable to be set aside. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case, in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the abovesaid two tax civil miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not maintainable and, therefore, they are dismissed.

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Expenditure On Maintenance, Guest House

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e are of the view that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on this account would satisfy the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1972 84 ITR 735. Payment of import duty to the extent of Rs. 52,248 by the assessee is an expenditure which was really incidental to the carrying on of the business of the assessee and, therefore, entitled to deduction. In the light of the above, in I.T.R. No. 85 of 1994, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and question No. 2 in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In I.T.R. No. 88 of 1994, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and question No. 2 in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Bonus Shares, Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital, Cost Of Acquisition, Fair Market Value, Shares And Securities

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 15 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Business Premises, Delay In Filing Return, High Court Under Article 226, Income Tax, Previous Year, Sales Tax, Waiver Of Interest

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  HUF, Status

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... at of a Hindu undivided family for the purposes of his wealth-tax assessment. The Tribunal held that the status of the assessee is that of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1976-77. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in the case of the same assessee in the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75, wherein this court held that the status of the assessee is not that of a Hindu undivided family. This decision was in CIT v. L. Balasubramaniam 1985 153 ITR 696 (Mad). In view of the abovesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Recovery Of Tax, Delay In Paying Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the control of the assessee. The insistence of the petitioner that he was entitled to the relief under s. 50B of the ED Act and, thus, he was not liable to pay the said amount on which the interest was charged, was of no help to the petitioner and indeed, this point was not argued before this Court. The CIT in his report to the Board submitted in connection with the waiver application of the petitioner, had clearly pointed out that the conditions precedent for exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner as envisaged under s. 220(2A) were not made out. A copy of the report is filed as Annexure -CA-2 to the counter affidavit. Although in the counter-affidavit it has been emphasised that even the third condition referred to in sub-s. (2A) of s. 220 of the Act is also not satisfied in the present case, but we do not feel it necessary to deal with it. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. There be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Reference, Exports, Benami, Question Of Law

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rs in its own name and that no evidence has been brought on record to show that the income from the export business carried on by Oswal Tailors is the income of the assessee-company. The finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged as perverse. No question of law arises. Dismissed.

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Regular Assessment, Advance Tax, Interest, Waiver

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... eted only on the basis of the returns filed by the petitioner pursuant to the notice under section 148 issued by the first respondent. In that sense the assessments made as per exhibits P-1 to P5 are only assessments made for the first time. This court in the decision in Lally Jacob v. ITO 1992 197 ITR 439 FB held that the assessment made for the first time on the basis of the returns filed pursuant to a notice under section 148 is a regular assessment, which decision has also been relied on by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has also observed that no valid reason has been urged on behalf of the petitioner for waiver of interest levied under section 139(8) or under section 217 of the Act. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Commissioner of Income-tax has rightly rejected the various contentions of the petitioner. There is no merit in this original petition. It is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Loss, Prima Facie Case, Additional Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... The correctness or otherwise of the prima facie adjustments made by the assessing authority is not in issue in these writ petitions. It is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior standing counsel for taxes that the question canvassed herein is covered by a decision of this court in Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India 1994 210 ITR 121. This court in the said decision has held that the provision for levy of additional tax even where the net result is a loss after carrying out adjustments is intended to prevent evasion of tax and that the amendment of section 143(1A) by the Finance Act, 1993, levying additional tax with retrospective effect from April 1, 1989, does not violate articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution. In view of the said decision of this court, I do not find any merit in the contentions taken in these original petitions. The original petitions are dismissed. But, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Wealth Tax, Reassessment, Condition Precedent

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... submitted the complete returns and the statement of foreign shares and stocks. The statements contained in annexures A/1 to A/3 and B/1 to B/3 with their statements clearly show that the petitioner had given fullest details of the wealth. If the officer had accepted those details and made the assessment order, then any other officer could not ordinarily unsettle the assessment orders unless the three requisite conditions of section 17 of the Act were satisfied. In the instant case, unfortunately, there is no material from the side of the Revenue to satisfy the judicial conscience of the court that the exercise of the power under section 17 is in accordance with the provisions of law. The notices annexures D, D-1, D-2 and D-3 are quashed and consequently the proceedings drawn on the basis of these notices are also quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner, after due verification.

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Maintainability of appeal - High Court declined to call for the reference on questions - having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. squarely dealt therewith, Court shall deem this to be a reference of the questions to the Court itself - hence appeal is maintainable

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Powers/jurisdiction of Tribunal - held that tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee and have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Fee paid to the Registrar for expansion of the capital base of the company - directly related to the capital expenditure incurred by the company - Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of ₹ 1,50,000 paid to the Registrar of Companies, as filing fee for enhancement of capital was not revenue expenditure - Held, yes

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Delay in filing return - penalty - held that quantum penalty should be as per law on the date of levying penalty

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Business of manufacturing Ashok Leyland trucks and also spare parts of those vehicles. It was also importing the spare parts from abroad and selling the same to the persons who have purchased the trucks from it - held that the assessee would be entitled to relief under sections 80E and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, respectively, on the income earned by it, from import and sale of spare parts from abroad

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Jurisdiction of Court - Commission was not justified in holding that Income-tax Officer had no power to proceed with or collect any material after the date of submission of the application under section 245C - Where the assessee filed an application for settlement in respect of three assessment years giving a combined computation of income - held that Commission should have rejected application for all the years when no such distinction was suggested even by the assessee

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether interest paid to a partner on the amounts deposited by him in his individual capacity is hit by clause (b) of section 40 where the partner is a partner not in his individual capacity but as representing a Hindu undivided family (HUF) - in view of Explanation 2 to section 40(b) inserted with effect from 1.4.1985, interest paid to him in his individual capacity even for periods prior to 1.4.1985 cannot be disallowed in the assessment of the firm.

  ---

• 1996 (12) TMI 1 - SC ORDER
  

  Charitable Trust - Whether the net wealth of the Hyderabad Race Club is exempt from wealth-tax under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - not a charitable organization hence not entitled to exemption

  ---

1 ....1213141516