Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 432 of 432 Records
-
1999 (10) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemption, Transfer Of Assets ... ... ... ... ..... ssible for us to accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the assessee. Though the assessee had been successful in persuading the Tribunal to accept that view, the Tribunal was in error in taking the view that it did. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rm. Arunachalam v. CIT 1997 227 ITR 222, that the clearing off of the mortgage debt by an assessee prior to the transfer of the property, would not entitle him to a deduction under section 48 of the Act. What is relevant is the cost of the acquisition and the total consideration for the transfer effected by the assessee. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us, viz., Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts paid in discharge of mortgage debts in respect of the properties sold, should be excluded in arriving at the net consideration eligible for relief under section 54E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? in favour of the Revenue, and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1999 (10) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference, Wealth Tax, Net Wealth, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... (Rs. 70,000) cash and ornaments (Rs. 68,680) which were included in the net wealth of the assessee, did not belong to him as an individual and belonged to the Hindu undivided family. By the exclusion of the aforesaid assets, the net wealth of the assessee fell below the taxable limit and, therefore, the learned Commissioner quashed the assessment. This has been upheld by the Tribunal. The Revenue has not challenged the Tribunal s finding about the investment in money-lending business, cash, and ornaments. Since these items stand excluded from the net wealth of, the assessee, the inclusion of agricultural land would not result in any taxable wealth and the net wealth after exemption under section 5 of the Act, would be below the taxable limit. Therefore, in view of the other findings of the Tribunal, the question that has been referred for the opinion of this court is merely of academic interest. We, therefore, decline to answer the same. The reference is returned unanswered.
-
1999 (10) TMI 11 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reference, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Appeal To Appellate Tribunal, Powers Of Tribunal, Block
-
1999 (10) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Refund, Application For Refund, Delay In Application ... ... ... ... ..... e of Karnataka, AIR 1995 SC 1770, also it has been observed that appropriate brief reasons, though not like a judgment, are a necessary concomitant for a valid order in support of the action or decision taken by the authority. In the present case no reason has been assigned for rejecting the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in claiming the refund. It was all the more necessary in view of the circular referred above. The impugned orders are quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh on the merits uninfluenced by the earlier order rejecting it and pass a speaking order. It is not that the reasons are to be given only for rejecting it but if on its fair consideration dispassionately a case for condonation of delay is made out on the criteria laid down by the Department, then appropriate relief should be given to the petitioner without the need of his resorting to this court again by way of judicial review.
-
1999 (10) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Special Deduction, Export Business ... ... ... ... ..... rough unpolished granites ? The matter involved relates to the assessment year 1992-93. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the question referred to us stands concluded by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. God Granites 1999 240 ITR 343 (Kar) in I T. R. C. No. 440 of 1998, decided on July 31, 1999. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1999 (10) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... tence of Geeta Industries then nothing is required to be argued by him. It is required to be noted that the amount has been paid by cheques and the party has withdrawn the amount by bearer cheques. Mr. Naik submitted that from the same bank the amount has been withdrawn. According to our opinion, it goes without saying that it was within the knowledge of the banker as to who was the account holder and who withdrew the amount from the same bank. The Assessing Officer by due diligence could have unearthed the fact that Geeta Industries is a bogus party by recording the statement of the bank manager, accountant or cashier or the party who introduced Geeta Industries to the bank. We are of the view that the matter is in the realm of appreciation of evidence and no interference is called for in the matter. In the circumstances, the appeals are dismissed. Notice discharged in all matters. No order as to costs. Copy of this order may be kept in other matters also. Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (10) TMI 7 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ax, Surat, to refund the amount. It was his moral obligation when a request was made to refund the excess amount. Even on a prima facie reading of the return and the receipt, one would know that the petitioner has disclosed Rs.5,00,000 as the amount of income on which he was required to pay 30 per cent. of tax. We are of the view that the petitioner has been denied his legitimate claim and, therefore, the amount of Rs.3,50,000 should be refunded to the petitioner together with 15 per cent. interest thereon. It is directed that the amount of refund together with interest shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Department shall pay 24 per cent. interest on the refund amount. The interest will be paid from January 2, 1998, on which date the petitioner has claimed for the refund of the amount. Rule is made absolute in both the matters. No order as to costs. A copy of this judgment may be kept in the other matter also.
-
1999 (10) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
High Court was right in holding that no ground was made out for condoning the delay in filing the application u/s 264 - submission by learned counsel that the petition under section 264 was pending when the application under section 88 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, had been filed, is not accepted - because what was really pending was the application for condonation of delay
-
1999 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in granting relief to the assessee under section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the interest component of the income earned out of the monies invested in short term deposits for the assessment year 1990-91 - Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the above question of law to the HC
-
1999 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee entered into an agreement, to sell to merchants all kinds of waste cotton - amount of salary that were payable by the mills to the assessee in the previous years relevant to the A.Y. 1046-47 & 1947-48 could have been brought to tax in those assessment years, whether paid or not - Tribunal is justified in holding that the relationship between the mills & assessee was that of master & servant & that the said amounts that had been paid to him were taxable under the head "salary"
-
1999 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that only the value of the interest of the beneficiary in the trust could be included in the net wealth and not the value of the corpus of the trust itself - in the case of the appellant trust beneficial interest is to be assessed to wealth-tax in the hands of the trustee under section 21(4) -However, the direction given by HC that "trustee will have to be assessed on the entire value of the trust fund as individual" is contrary - appeal partly allowed
-
1999 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
By the Finance Act, 1989, Explanation to section 2(1A), inserted with effect from April 1, 1970clearly declares that the revenue derived from land shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included any income arising from the transfer of any land referred to in section 2(14)(iii)(a) or (b). The upshot of the same is that income derived from sale of such agricultural lands cannot be treated as "agricultural income"
....
|