Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1999 1999 (6) 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 281 to 286 of 286 Records

• 1999 (6) TMI 6 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Investment Allowance

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... and, therefore, it is a thing within the meaning of section 32A(2)(b)(ii). Therefore, the Tribunal is right in its view that when X-ray films are produced the assessee produces a thing and, therefore, he is entitled for investment allowance. As regards the equipment used for conducting the pathological tests the assessee is not qualified to claim investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. The assessee is also entitled for investment allowance on stabilizer, electric fans, scanner and air-conditioner used to keep the analytical systems, as they are necessary for purposes of production of an article or a thing. In the light of the above, we answer the question referred in the affirmative in so far as the equipment used for production of X-rays, air-conditioner, fans, stabilizer and scanner. We answer the question referred by the Tribunal in the negative in so far as the equipment used for purposes of conducting pathological tests. The reference is answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1999 (6) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Non-resident

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 977 109 ITR 158 (AP), the deputation of foreign personnel for supervising the erection is only incidental. Since, the agreement provides for payment of sale consideration and nothing else, the deputation of foreign personnel is only incidental to the execution of the agreement and for effective fulfilment of the contract of sale, it cannot be said that the Indian company is an agent of the foreign company within the meaning of section 9 of the Income-tax Act and there is no business connection between the foreign company and the Indian company within the meaning of section 163 of the Income-tax Act. The facts of the present case are on all fours with the judgment in CIT v. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. 1977 109 ITR 158(AP). We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Tribunal is right in its view that there is no business connection between the assessee-company and the foreign company. In the light of the above, we answer the two questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue.

  ---

• 1999 (6) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Income, Accrual Of Income, Method Of Accounting, Entertainment Expenditure, Interest On Sticky Loans, Business Expenditure

  ---

• 1999 (6) TMI 3 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  New Industrial Undertaking, Deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n and that filing of such report later in the assessment proceedings was not in compliance with the statutory requirement. This contention was overruled by the Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries 1993 201 ITR 325. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken because filing of the audit report during the assessment proceedings by the assessee amounts to substantial compliance with the statutory requirement under section 80-I(7). It would be too technical to disallow deduction merely on the ground that the audit report was not attached to the return filed by the assessee when the existence of such report is not in doubt and when it is brought on the record during the assessment proceedings. In this view of the matter, it appears to us that the Tribunal had rightly rejected the request of the Revenue for reference under section 256(1). This application also meets the same fate and is dismissed.

  ---

• 1999 (6) TMI 2 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... connotation and enquiry could be during the pendency of the proceedings or may be even prior to that for the purpose of initiating the proceedings under the Act. If the enquiry is pending and during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings information is sought, then the power under section 133(6) could be exercised. If proceeding is not pending power in respect of an enquiry could be exercised by virtue of the second proviso of section 133(6). That enquiry could be even in a case where no proceedings are pending. It has not come on record that the Commissioner or the Director has given the approval in the present case. From the notice issued it is not evident that any proceeding under the Act were pending or for the purpose of the enquiry the approval of the Commissioner or the Director were taken. In these circumstances, the notice issued is quashed. The respondent would be free to issue notice after taking approval from the Director or the Commissioner as the case may be.

  ---

• 1999 (6) TMI 1 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Voluntary Disclosure Of Income, Search And Seizure

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nce of express provision to that effect in the scheme. We do not find any need for making such exception to uphold the validity of section 64(2)(ii). Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in pursuance of the interim order dated March 18, 1998, the appellants had made a voluntary disclosure and had paid tax on that basis. The interim direction was made subject to the final decision in the appeals. As we are affirming the decision of the learned single judge, upholding section 64(2)(ii), it is for the concerned authority to now consider whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1) of section 64 or whether they are barred under sub-section (2)(ii). If the authorities hold that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the scheme having regard to section 64(2)(ii), the amounts paid may be adjusted against any tax liability of the respective appellants. We accordingly dismiss these appeals, subject to the observation in para. 26 above.

  ---

1 ....1112131415