Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1999 1999 (3) 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 421 to 440 of 444 Records

• 1999 (3) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Reference, Penalty, Return, Furnishing of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Depreciation, Investment Allowance

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Capital Gains

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ssment year 1984-85 sold the garden at Bhagalpur and obtained a sum of Rs. 28,000 and claimed exemption under section 11(1A) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee-trust. The appeal preferred by the assessee-trust was also dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On further appeal, the Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to extend the benefit of exemption under section 11(1A) of the Act to the assessee with regard to the amount of sale proceeds. In the decision reported in CIT v. Ambalal Sarabhai Trust No. 3 1988 173 ITR 683, the Gujarat High Court has held that the assessee, being a charitable trust, was entitled to exemption tax on the capital gains arising on the sale of the shares, as the provisions of section 11(1A) of the Act were fully satisfied. Following the aforesaid decision of the Gujarat High Court and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the second question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 23 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
  

  Voluntary Disclosure Of Income And Wealth, Interest

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... sion Bench judgment of the Madras High Court reported in Swaminathan (V.N.) v. CIT 1984 150 ITR 375. In the above case, the assessee had paid two instalments, one before March 31, 1976, and the other before March 31, 1977. This was a case of voluntary disclosure of wealth under section, 15 of the Act. In the above case, the assessee was held liable to pay interest. It was observed that if the assessee wants to get immunity under the Act, he has to pay the interest. The above case, as a matter of fact, does not advance the plea put across by the petitioner. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the respondents were well within their rights to claim interest in terms of section 6 of the Act. This petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed with costs. Cost Rs. 500. This order shall govern the disposal of writ petitions, O. W. P. Nos. 337, 338, 378, 379, 380, 381 and 382 of 1982. A copy of this order be placed on each of the files. Disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment, Compulsory Audit of Accounts

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... enges exhibit P-1 order. On going through exhibit P-1 order, it can be seen that the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax has applied his mind and 30 per cent. of the bill of the chartered accountant was disallowed and only balance was allowed. Of course, in a particular case where it is found that the bill is arbitrary, etc., this court may set aside or even direct the Commissioner for granting a hearing and then consider the matter. But, in this case, on going through the details of the bill produced by the second respondent-chartered accountant as exhibit R-2(B) and the volume of work done it cannot be stated that it is arbitrary or reconsideration is necessary. Subsequently, there was an agreement on November 9, 1996, with the chartered accountant and the assessee and the bill amount was agreed to be paid in instalments. In such circumstances, no further orders are necessary under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the original petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 21 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  The petitioners prayed for quashing paragraph 25 of the order of the Settlement Commission dated June 15, 1984, in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 and also the order dated January 22, 1991, refusing to rectify the order dated June 15, 1984, under which, prayer to delete paragraph 25 was made. - the orders dated June 15, 1984, and January 22, 1991, are quashed. The matter is sent back to the Settlement Commission for determining the liability afresh as to whether the firm is liable for registration or not and the order would be passed only against the firm alone if it is considered proper.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Production of design and art works which serve as the basic material for publication of advertisements in newspapers, periodicals, technical journals, souvenirs, etc. - Preparation of designs for fabrication and erection of hoardings for outdoor publicity - Production of publicity texts including for the press, direct mail product literature etc." - tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is an industrial company entitled for concessional rate of tax

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 19 - SC ORDER
  

  Whether a return filed and accepted in pursuance of an order made u/s 146, can be treated as a return filed u/s 139 - held that where a best judgment assessment is set aside u/s 146 on the Income-tax Officer being satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making a return required u/s 139(2), he naturally has to receive the return filed along with the application u/s 146. Such return would then be a return filed u/s 139 for the purpose of s. 80 as it then stood

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had claimed extra-shift allowance on computer only and not on data processing machines and computer is eligible for extra-shift allowance - Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on data processing machine/computer even though the assessee is not engaged in any of the activities mentioned in section 32A(2) - application of the Revenue u/s 256(2) is allowed

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Question that "Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the AO to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of unpaid sales-tax if the same was covered by the specific scheme of the Gujarat Government whereby the deferred payment scheme was converted into interest-free loan particularly when the provisions of s. 43B are retrospective in operation" is a question of law - question quoted above shall be referred by the Tribunal to the HC

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 16 - SC ORDER
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the premium paid by the assessee on behalf of the employee-director formed part of 'salary' and allowable as deduction from computing the assessable income of the company and not 'perquisite', disallowable under section 40A (5) or 40(c) - question of law does arise which should be considered by the High Court.

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Because of suffering of losses, assessee had dismantled its business never to return back to it - the amount earned by an assessee by leasing out the assets of the business would not be income from business carried on by it - hence income received by the assessee by leasing out the factory was not assessee's business income

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Export of "agarbathis" - commission paid to agents outside India who had procured orders - Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was not entitled to the weighted deduction u/s 35B(1)(b)(iv), in respect of the commission payments made to agents outside India

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Section 2(9) defines the assessment year to be the period of 12 months commencing on the first day of April every year - It does not depend upon one or other assessee - unabsorbed development rebate u/s 33 and the unabsorbed deduction u/s 80J may be carried forward only for the eight and four assessment years, respectively, that follow the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the said development rebate and deduction was first earned

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Assessee have poultry farms and they run hatcheries where eggs are hatched on a large scale by adopting the latest scientific and technological methods - held that assessee is neither an industrial undertaking nor is it engaged in the business of producing "articles or things", consequently, the assessee is not entitled to developmental allowance under section 32A of the Act and deductions under sections 80HH, 80HHA, 80-I and 80J

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Rectification Of Mistakes - Revenue has not been able to satisfy us that it shows any apparent error upon the record. Reference to documents outside the record and the law is impermissible when applying the provisions of section 154 - hence Tribunal was not justified in upholding the finding of the CIT (Appeals) who cancelled the order of the Assessing Office passed on June 18, 1991, under section 154

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Assessee contend that while granite is a mineral in the general sense, it is not a mineral for purposes of section 80HHC and that, therefore, the deduction provided for therein is available to the assessee - Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the allowance claimed u/s 80HHC in respect of the granite exported from India

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Claim for allowance u/s 80HHC on the ground that it was an industrial undertaking that manufactured/produced articles - held that activity of processing of prawns is not an activity of manufacture or production - processed or frozen shrimps and prawns are commercially regarded as the same commodity as raw shrimps and prawns - hence assessee's business doesn't involves 'production' hence not entitled to exemption under section 80HH

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
  

  ITO allowed the deduction only to the extent of 80 per cent of the aggregate contribution and spread it out over a period of five years. For so doing, he relied upon a notification dated October 21, 1965 issued by CBDT - Whether Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of CIT (A) that the entire initial contribution made to the superannuation fund is allowable deduction - Held, yes - revenue appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Applicability of provisions of section 104 - In view of the deemed definition given in section 2(22)(e) of the Act, any loan advanced to a shareholder out of the accumulated profits of the company in which the public do not have a substantial interest, would amount to payment of dividend - accordingly section 104 is applicable

  ---

• 1999 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Respondent have business of publishing a newspaper, purchased a aircraft for the purpose of quicker transport of the newspaper - aircraft met with an accident - insurer purchased a similar aircraft made it available to the respondent in the place of the damaged one - Such exercise of option by insurer could only be after the occurrence of the accident and not at any time earlier - hence the expression "money payable" in s. 41(2) will not apply - profit not assessable u/s 41(2)

  ---

1 ....181920212223