Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1998 1998 (8) 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 501 to 509 of 509 Records

• 1998 (8) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax, Gift

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the Bombay High Court in CGT v. Seth Aravind N. Mafatlal 1990 184 ITR 580, wherein it has been held that The premia paid by the assessee in respect of policies of insurance on his life which were taken out by him under the provisions of the Married Women s Property Act for the benefit of his sons are in discharge of an obligation in a contract of insurance and do not amount to gifts made by the assessee to the beneficiaries of the policies. The decision of this court in CGT v. R. R. Sarma 1978 111 ITR 70 was followed in the decision cited. Applying the ratio laid down in the above decisions, we hold that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the insurance premium paid by the assessee in respect of the policy taken under the Married Women s Right to Property Act was not a gift in favour of his wife within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act and the amount is not liable to gift-tax. We answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.

  ---

• 1998 (8) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Charitable Purposes, Conditions Precedent

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n of delay, relate to the aspect of the religious nature of the institution or the society, as the case may be. The objections, vide point Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 8 pertain to the religious aspect only. It will not be necessary for the petitioner to comply with those objections. As for delay, learned standing counsel very fairly stated that the question of delay would not come in the way of the petitioner. As regards the other objections, which are of technical nature, they may be complied with. In that view of the matter, it will not be necessary for the petitioner to comply with the objections and or suggestions made by the first respondent as a precondition for consideration of the application. The first respondent is, therefore, directed to pass an order in the light of the observations made above. The application shall be disposed of within one month from today. The writ petition shall stand allowed. Rule is made absolute in the terms stated above without any order as to costs.

  ---

• 1998 (8) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Wealth Tax, Valuation Of Unquoted Equity Shares

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... CWT v. K. S. N. Bhatt 1984 145 ITR 1, once it is determined that the tax liability is nil , it cannot be said that any amount of tax is outstanding. When it was found as here that the penalty payable is nil, it cannot be said that there was a liability for the payment of penalty. Similar is the view taken by this court in CWT v. M. V. Arunachalam 2000 241 ITR 686. Counsel for the assessee sought to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. S. N. Bhatt s case 1984 145 ITR 1 contending that it was a case of an individual, while here the computation required to be made is not only with reference to an individual but with reference to a company as well. That makes no difference in principle. If the liability is nil, it is only nil whether it be for a company or for the purpose of determining the valuation of the shares held by the assessee in the company. We, therefore, answer the two questions referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.

  ---

• 1998 (8) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Exemption

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... , 1962, will not come to the rescue of the assessee by applying the principles laid down in the decision of CIT v. Rattan Trust 1997 227 ITR 356 (SC). Following the principles laid down by the apex court in CIT v. Rattan Trust 1997 227 ITR 356 we hold that the Income-tax Officer was correct in invoking the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in regard to the payment of Rs. 10,001 to Sri Thatha Chettiar, president of the society, and other payments and advances to interested persons as the same falls under the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and denying the exemption to the assessee under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. So the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act and the Income-tax Officer was not correct in invoking section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. We answer both the questions of law against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

  ---

• 1998 (8) TMI 5 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Voluntary Disclosure Of Income

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ns of the old Act except to the extent provided in the 1961 Act. In view of this, the meaning of the Expression in respect of all income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act for any assessment year used in the Scheme will have to be confined to the assessment year 1962-63 and onwards. The income chargeable to tax under the Act of 1922 will not fall within the scope of this expression merely because proceedings under section 148 of the 1961 Act can be initiated in respect of certain income which was chargeable to tax under the old Act or merely because penalty proceedings can be held against the assessee under section 297(2)(g) of the 1961 Act. In view of the above conclusion, we do not find any error in the view taken by the respondent that the benefit of the Scheme cannot be availed of by the petitioners and, therefore, the certificate in terms of section 68(2) of the 1997 Act cannot be issued to them. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are dismissed.

  ---

• 1998 (8) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Discrimination Provision is valid

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e class of companies cannot be held to be unconstitutional because similar tax has not been levied on all other classes of companies. The closely held companies constitute a special class and has been recognised as same for the purposes of taxation for long. Though the form of the company might have been adopted, if in reality the affairs of the company are managed by or for the benefit of a small group of persons, who closely hold the shares, the benefit of the business carried on is ultimately for that small group. The levy of wealth-tax on the assets owned by such companies, therefore, does not result in any hostile discrimination. As noticed earlier, all the closely held companies are to be treated in the same manner, as indicated in the statutory provision. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Chunnilal Onkarmal P. Ltd. v. Union of India 1996 221 ITR 459 has taken a similar view. here is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

  ---

• 1998 (8) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Agrl. ITO 19991 240 ITR 618 (Mad)), following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1578, that the expenditure incurred for printing and stationery and for the purpose in connection with the firm and it is an allowable expenditure. Accordingly, we allow this expenditure. In the light of the observations made under each of the items, the tax case is allowed in part. No costs. ORDER MRS. A. SUBBULAKHSMI J.--This matter is listed today (23-12-1998) for being mentioned. Counsel for the applicant submitted that under the heading Repairs and maintenance of buildings and repairs to roads and drains in item No. 16, and others is not included. It is an omission to include and others in item No. 16. Accordingly and others is included in item No. 16. With regard to the disallowance of 19 per cent. for non-plantation area, finding has already been given for this item that the disallowance of 19 per cent. is perfectly in order.

  ---

• 1998 (8) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty for concealment of income - Whether, Tribunal is justified in law in cancelling the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c)? - 2. Whether having regard to the quantification of income on the basis of accretion to wealth computed on the basis of the seized material and other incriminating evidence, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that revised returns filed by the assessee cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence of admission of concealment of income? - 3. Whether, Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the materials seized and the statement given have to be disregarded in considering whether the penalties imposed were justifiable? - 4. Whether having regard to the filing of the revised return which is admission of the correct assessable income, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the penalty if held to be leviable, would be only that calculated in accordance with the law as it stood on the date when the penalty was imposed, viz., taking the tax avoided as the measure of penalty as per the law which stood at the time of filing the original return? - 5. Whether, in any event, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal cancelling the penalties under section 271(1)(c) is not unreasonable as being based on irrelevant consideration ignoring material and relevant facts and for that reason unsustainable in law?" - Our answer to the questions referred to us are, therefore, in favour of the Revenue, and against the assessee.

  ---

• 1998 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Acting under the lease agreement, the assessee invested a sum of Rs. 1,62,835 in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 50,937 during the succeeding year in constructing a new building on the said land - Tribunal was right in holding that the building expenses of Rs. 1,62,835 are not liable to be taken into account as deductible expenditure in arriving at the real income of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69 - Impugned expenditure are revenue expenditure

  ---

1 ....2223242526