|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 431 of 431 Records
-
1998 (6) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... e assessee was right in stating that by offering certain prizes the assessee was attracting more members and thereby increasing its turnover. The expenditure incurred with that object and which object admittedly had also been substantially attained, was clearly in the nature of sales promotion expenditure. The prizes offered to those lucky winners of the lucky draw was also clearly an inducement made to promote enrolment and to increase the turnover and secure interest free funds for the business of the assessee. Having regard to the object served by inducing the new members to enrol in the schemes, the expenditure must be held to be expenditure in the nature of sales promotion expenditure. That expenditure cannot be regarded as a bare minimum for running the schemes. The Tribunal was in error in holding otherwise. The question referred to us is therefore answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 750.
-
1998 (6) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Export Markets Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction, Definition ... ... ... ... ..... . v. CIT 1986 157 ITR 86 and in the case of CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. 1987 166 ITR 66, wherein the expression plant was construed to mean drawings and patterns. We hold that the view of the Tribunal that only four items, viz., tools, dies, jigs and moulds, should be excluded is not sustainable in law. The question of law referred to us does not bring out the real question and we reframe the question as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not a small-scale industrial undertaking within the meaning of clause (2) of the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? In the view we have taken, we are not answering the question of law as reframed by us, but we return the reference unanswered coupled with a direction that the Tribunal should hear the appeal in the light of the directions stated above. The assessee is entitled to costs of a sum of Rs. 1,000.
-
1998 (6) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exemption, Education ... ... ... ... ..... ption under section 10(22) of the Act has to be decided with reference to the objects of the society and if the trust, in order to attain its main object, conducts some business for raising the funds, the claim for exemption under section 10(22) of the Act would still be available to the trust. The distinction between the objects of the trust and the powers of the trustees has been applied by the Kerala High Court in the above two decisions. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court in the above two decisions. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT 1997 224 ITR 310, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the common question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (6) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... re established, the assessment cannot be reopened. But, that aspect is apparently absent in these cases. There is not even an averment on the side of the respondent that there is any escapement of income. That being so, the proposed reopening is illegal and without jurisdiction, as there is no escapement of income warranting the reopening of the assessment already completed. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of these cases and also in the light of my above discussions regarding several aspects of this case, I am of the clear view, that the proposed reopening of the assessment already completed in these cases is illegal and without jurisdiction and that, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Thus, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed and, consequently, the proceedings of the respondent impugned in these writ petitions are hereby quashed. W. M. Ps. are dismissed. No costs.
-
1998 (6) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From House Property, Bank ... ... ... ... ..... s of the case, it is clear that there was no link between tenants and the business carried on by the assessee. The business carried on by the assessee is banking business and it has nothing to do with the letting out of a portion of the property owned by it. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion in holding that the income from the property let out to its constituents cannot be regarded as income from business. Since there was no nexus between the business carried on by the assessee and the letting out of a portion of the assessee s building, the income was rightly assessed under the head Income from house property . We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal in so far as it held that the house property income should be assessed under the head Income from house property , and accordingly, we answer the second question of law referred to us in the negative and against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1998 (6) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty, HUF, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ion 171(8) apply both in relation to the levy as well as to collection of any penalty in respect of any period up to the date of the partition, whether total or partial, of a Hindu undivided family. In this case, the partition took place on December 31, 1974, and the order recognising the partial partition was passed on January 30, 1979, and, therefore, the levy of penalty related to the period prior to the date of partition and the Income-tax Officer was justified in levying the penalty though on the date he passed the order, the family had ceased to exist by virtue of the partition. His action on levying the penalty is justifiable on the plain terms of section 171(8) of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in its view that the penalty levied was legally correct. Accordingly, we answer the common question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000 one set.
-
1998 (6) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... The assessee had reported the cost of construction at Rs. 70,000. The assessee was not required to report the progress of the construction as the return did not require him to do so. The figure given by the assessee as the cost of construction was revised by the assessing authorities on the basis of the report of the valuer and addition made to the assessee s assessable income. Such addition in the context cannot be regarded as addition of income concealed which would attract the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that there is no material on record to show that the assessee concealed any of its income for the assessment year under appeal so as to attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reference made at the instance of the Revenue, therefore, is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As the assessee has not appeared before us, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (6) TMI 4 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Reference, Finding Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... rn. Be that as it may, one thing is clear as admitted on behalf of the assessee, that the foreign tours were undertaken to see that a plant can be established in India for which expenditure was incurred. As held in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. s case 1989 177 ITR 377 (SC) such expenditure can be said to be capital expenditure even if in pursuance of such tours a separate plant might not have been established or capital might not have been acquired. Since the purpose and object was to create a capital asset, expenses incurred can be said to be capital expenditure. The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of such expenditure. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the question referred to this court must be answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is, accordingly, disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.
-
1998 (6) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... 286. Mr. Shyam Diwan, learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand,submits that the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in this case in view of the concurrent findings of the authorities below that the assessee failed to prove that the concern of the assessee was working for more than one shift. He further drew our attention to the order of the Tribunal wherein it is stated that there was no extra shift working in the concern of the assessee. It is thus evident that the assessee is not entitled to extra shift allowance. In view of the above we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim extra shift allowance in respect of cages and equipment and double shift allowance in respect of machinery. We therefore answer questions Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative, i.e, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This reference is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs.
-
1998 (6) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
"Assessee" is a co-operative society engaged in banking business. For the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the income by way of interest on Government securities and dividends on shares of the Industrial Financial Corporation - claim of special deduction is accepted
-
1998 (6) TMI 1 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Service Tax - Penalty for delayed filing of returns for four successive quarters leviable but reducible where assessee had not carry out any business
....
|
