Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1997 1997 (4) 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 381 to 400 of 403 Records

• 1997 (4) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Foreign Technician, Directors, Ceiling, Surtax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... . The reasonable construction of section 40A(5)(b) would be to limit the allowance to the extent to which the exemption was granted by the Central Government. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that in determining the quantum of remuneration, it cannot be on the total remuneration, but the extent to which the remuneration was exempt under section 10(6)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the questions of law referred to us as under (i) First question of law, in the affirmative and against the assessee. (ii) Second question of law, in the affirmative and against the assessee. (iii) Third question of law, in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. (iv) Fourth question of law, in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. (v) Fifth question of law, in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Each party will be entitled to the costs of the reference. Costs Rs. 1,500 one set in T. C. Nos. 1816 and 1817 of 1984 and Rs. 1,500 in T. C. No. 1818 of 1984.

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government, Auction Sale

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... may be true that the valuation given in Accommodation Times may not give a fair answer, but it would show the trend of prices in the locality. Similar would be the case of the reports given by the Institute of Valuers. Under the Stamp Act, for the purpose of stamp fees, the stamp duty authorities have also fixed the stamp fees payable based on the market price prevailing. This material coupled with the sale instances show that the rate per sq. ft. of built up area agreed to be purchased by the petitioner could not be said not to be a fair market value. In the circumstances the order of the appropriate authority having ignored material evidence and/or brushed aside the evidence on unsustainable grounds, cannot be upheld and the order dated January 17, 1995, in the circumstances has to be quashed and set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Capital Gains, Agricultural Income, Writ

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ion in section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, by the Amendment Act of 1989 is not required to be gone into, since the ground which was sought to be raised by the petitioner was the ground of vires of the Explanation and on the question of nature of the land, after a detailed examination, we do not find that it is at all necessary to judge the vires as the land has lost its character as agricultural land, therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained by this court. The question of vires, therefore, is not gone into and the petitioner is not permitted to raise this question. Since we have not allowed the amendment and have treated the amendment application as rejected, the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was sought to be assailed before us in the writ petition, is also not permitted to be assailed in the writ petition. The Writ petitioner must seek its relief on merits before the appropriate forum. The writ petition, having no force, is dismissed.

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Ceiling On Expenditure, Company

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s a remuneration within the meaning of section 40(c)(i) of the Act. The remuneration may be paid in any manner. It may be paid and measured on the basis of work done or time spent by him. So long as the payment was made, on whatever be the measure for such payment or by whatever name it is called, for the work done by the director for the company, it will be a remuneration paid by the company as the company has in effect remunerated the director for the work done by the director. Therefore we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the commission paid to the director should also be taken into account for the purpose of determining the ceiling provided under section 40(c) of the Act. Hence, we are of the view that the second question of law referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Accordingly, we answer the second question of law in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Reference, Charitable Trust, Exemption

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... question of law. Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue, fairly brought to our notice the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. The finding is clear that the assessee was not holding the assets in non-specified investments and in so far as other investments of the trust is concerned, the Tribunal found that they were invested in banks and other approved investments. The Tribunal also found that there was no violation of the provisions of section 11(5) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Act. In the absence of any material produced by the Revenue to controvert the finding of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion that the assessee is entitled to exemption provided under section 11(1) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we hold that the findings of the Tribunal are based on the facts of the case and no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Hence, this tax case petition is dismissed. No costs.

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT
  

  During the course of a raid by the customs authorities cash amount was found in the locker standing in the name of the assessee with the PNB - After receiving the necessary information about the said recovery, the Income-tax Officer included the said amount in the assessment of the assessee for the year 1956-57 under the head "Income from other sources" - Tribunal was not right in holding that Explanation 2 to 'section 153 was not applicable

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Acquisition of Immovable Property under section 269F - property was transferred by the two transferors who are jointly co-owners of the said property to four brothers in separate defined shares as prescribed in the sale deed - Revenue contend that the purchase was made by the four brothers as an association of persons - High Court was justified that the sale transaction could not be held to be a sale in favour of association of persons

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 16 - SC ORDER
  

  HC is justified in holding that if the quantification of loss is properly made and duly notified by following the prescribed procedure, such quantification may be impressed with the principle of finality if the matter is not carried further but the principle of finality as may be applicable to the question of quantification of the amount of loss does not apply to the determination of the source of income

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Held that the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the assessee could not claim deduction in respect of the interest that was paid to the bank on the loan advanced in the overdraft account on the ground that the said loan was paid out of the dividend received on the shares pledged with the bank for securing the overdraft. The High Court was in error in taking the contrary view

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the amount paid by the respondent-assessee to the foreign collaborator for technical know-how is a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure - High Court was justified in concluding that the amounts paid to the collaborator is only a "licence fee" and not the price for acquisition of a "capital asset". It was concluded that the entire payment constitutes revenue expenditure and the questions were answered in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Cold storage and ice plant - claim for development rebate at 35 per cent. as provided under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(a) - eligibility of the assessee for grant of development rebate - held that assessee is entitled to grant of development rebate at the rate of 35 per cent.

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Acquisition Of Immovable Property - held that clarification and further direction made by the SC shall be supplemental to and be treated as parts of the main judgment

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT
  

  After the judgment of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petitions the appellants had obtained a stay order from the High Court in the letters patent appeals that were filed by them and after the dismissal of the said appeals a stay order was obtained from this court which order has been in operation during the pendency of these appeals, we grant four months' time to the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment proceedings

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Registry is directed to insist that in all tax matters, coming to this court ultimately on a reference, the order passed by the Tribunal in the appeal and also the statement of the case should be produced by the appellant or the petitioner. In case the appellant or the petitioner has not produced it and if the respondent his with him such records, the Registry may in appropriate cases direct him to produce the same.

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Assessee claim that it was a company whose main business was manufacture of leather, processing of hides and skins with chemical process and the provisions of section 104 do not apply in view of sub-section (4) of section 104 - Whether the profit obtained during the relevant previous year by the sale of chemicals imported, both manufactured and purchased by it, was rightly held as not attributable to the manufacturing activity carried on by it - Held, yes

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Business of the assessee-company is the holding of investments & if with reference to the business of holding investments, any expenditure had been incurred that could have been allowed as deduction. The expenditure incurred in payment of managerial remuneration to the directors of the subsidiary companies cannot be said to be expenditure incurred in carrying on the business - Hence HC has rightly proceeded on the basis that there must be a nexus between expenditure and business of the assessee

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether, on a proper construction of the trust deed the Tribunal was right in holding that the objects of the trust are not for charitable purposes within the meaning of section 2(15) and that consequently its income is not exempt u/s 11 - assessee claimed that the business carried on by it and from out of which it had derived income was one held under trust and since the trust was for charitable purposes - Held that assessee-trust is entitled to exemption u/s 11 read with section 2(15)

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Industrial Company - according to the assessee, it is engaged in the "business of processing of goods" and so entitled to the concessional rate of income-tax - Whether "refrigeration" and "fumigation" are of the same or similar import, or whether there is any difference, is a matter which requires a close look - Whether the appellant is an 'industrial company' as defined in the respective Finance Acts and can be taxed only at 55 per cent - matter remanded

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Tribunal hold that the assessee had incurred an expenditure of ₹ 3,00,000 during the relevant previous year by way of discount paid to the persons who had subscribed to the debentures issued by it for ₹ 1.5 crores during the relevant previous year and the same was allowable as a revenue expenditure - Held that appellant is, entitled to deduct a sum of ₹ 12,500 out of the discount of ₹ 3,00,000 in the relevant assessment year

  ---

• 1997 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  The question whether there was real accrual of income to the assessee-company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity has to be considered by taking the probability/improbability of realisation in a realistic manner - Tribunal rightly held that the claim at the increased rates on the basis of which necessary entries were made represented only hypothetical income and the impugned amounts as brought to tax by the Officer did not represent the income which had really accrued

  ---

1 ....161718192021