|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 482 Records
-
2000 (12) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h 31, 1982, reported, inter alia, that the society proposed to establish MR. Arunachalam Vocational Training Centre at Kanadukathan, Ramanathapuram District, from the academic year 1982-83. This new venture aims at grooming prospective industrial employees and even entrepreneurs. The Commissioner has found that the institution was actually set up in August, 1982. Having regard to these facts, and in the light of our prima facie view that the earlier judgment of this court requires reconsideration, we direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee-society was not an educational institution, and was not entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Act? The Tribunal shall submit a statement of the case together with the materials relevant for the purpose of answering the question.
-
2000 (12) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g in mind the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has to be said that obtaining of panch witnesses was not an impossible task for Mr. Abrol, who is supposed to have conducted the deemed seizure operation on December 13, 1996. In fact, the Department itself has admitted that there were many defects in the panchanama. They were repeatedly saying that there were many defects in the panchanama and still were saying that believe in it and accept it , is not acceptable. Having heard both the advocates at length and having gone through the impugned order, so also the various authorities cited by Mr. Rivonkar, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench. The impugned assessment indeed is barred by limitation and also invalid. In view of this, therefore, the impugned assessment was rightly annulled. No interference is therefore warranted. Hence, the following order All the tax appeals are dismissed in limine.
-
2000 (12) TMI 20 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s case 1997 228 ITR 653 (P and H) as well as Naresh Kumar and Co. 2000 243 ITR 760 (P and H), the two Division Benches have held that persons holding L-14 and L-14A licences do not fall within the definition of buyer and the holders of L-13 licences cannot be treated as sellers qua those holding L-14 and L-14A licences. Therefore, the demands created by respondent No. 3 against the petitioners by assuming that they had committed default in making deduction at source in terms of section 206C cannot be sustained. The notices issued by respondent No. 3 under section 226(3) are also liable to be quashed because the same are founded on patently illegal demand notices issued by the said respondent. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned demand notices issued by respondent No. 3 under section 206C as well as notices issued by the said respondent under section 226(3) are declared illegal and quashed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rom the cash system of accounting. Under the mercantile system, credit entries are made in respect of the amounts due immediately they become legally due though they may be received at a later point of time. As against this, under the cash system, it is only the actual cash receipts and actual cash payments that are recorded as credits and debits. Therefore, the amount which became legally due to the assessee on successful completion of work will prima facie be deemed as its income liable to be assessed during the relevant assessment year. That is an issue on which we do not want to express final opinion at this stage, but, we are convinced that the question sought by the Revenue is a question of law requiring determination by this court. Hence, the petition is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the question noted hereinabove to this court for its opinion. The Tribunal is also directed to remit the record of the case to this court.
-
2000 (12) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion to section 271(1)(c). Applications for reference under section 256(1) were not entertained and on being moved under section 256(2), the questions have been referred. We have heard counsel for the Revenue. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the true import of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) which was added from April 1, 1964, was not noticed. We find that the Tribunal was conscious of the Explanation. But on the facts of the case came to hold that the concealment was not proved. The order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner does not form part of the paper book. The same has also not been filed by the Revenue at the time of hearing. In these circumstances, it is not possible to know as to what weighed with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. But in view of the factual conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal, we find no question of law arises and, therefore, we decline to answer the questions referred.
-
2000 (12) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nsistent use of such dyes and chemicals which are of corrosive nature. Further, the plant and machinery start depreciating the moment they are put to use. Hence, the depreciation has been provided for the full year instead of pro-rata depreciation and that the Tribunal has given the findings on the basis of the factual material on record. It is also submitted in the alternative that in any view of the matter even if the depreciation were claimed as per the order of the Commissioner under section 263, considering that the relevant assessment years were from the assessment year 1989-90 onwards, over a period of time the assessee would have claimed the same total amount of depreciation. In view of the above findings of the Tribunal, it is obvious that the findings given by the Tribunal are based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, this appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 16 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mily was treated as the capital of Bal Kishan and none of the other partners contributed any capital in the firm. The capital asset invested in the business of the firm was joint family property and was not partitioned. In the circumstances, we feel that the business of Government contract awarded to the Hindu undivided family continued to be the business of the Hindu undivided family and it did not transform itself into a partnership business of the firm. We are in agreement with the Tribunal that no partnership came into existence in law. In the light of our answer to the first question, the necessary corollary is that the view of the Tribunal to the effect that the income arising from the contract was to be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family, is also correct. For the foregoing reasons, our answer to both the questions referred to us is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the regular assessment. Moreover, where the provisional assessment is not followed by any regular assessment the assessee will not be left without any statutory remedy against the provisional assessment. This would encourage the income-tax authorities to make an inflated provisional assessment but thereafter not follow it up with a regular assessment. We cannot accept such an anomaly. For the above reason the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated January 30, 1978 and March 8, 1983, are quashed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 32,85,964 which is the tax paid on the basis of the provisional assessments along with 12 per cent. interest from the date of payment of such tax by the petitioner till the date of refund. The Department will make this refund with interest to the petitioner within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Commissioner of Income-tax concerned.
-
2000 (12) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... -73 and 1973-74. It is the undisputed position that fresh order of assessments after reopening of the assessments which were earlier made ex parte were completed on April 30, 1976. Obviously reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (in short the IAC ), and penalties were imposed on July 31, 1976. By virtue of an amendment to section 274 of the Act, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, whereby sub-section (2) was deleted, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lost jurisdiction to impose penalty. What would be the effect if the reference was made earlier to April 1, 1976, is not the question here. Therefore, when the reference was made the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had been divested of his jurisdiction to impose penalty. That being the position, the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion. The answer to the question referred, therefore, is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The references stand disposed of.
-
2000 (12) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other execution application in another suit against the same judgment debtor for premises adjacent to the premises in question on the same point. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order dated September 29, 1997, of justice Vijender Jain I am of the considered view that this court has no jurisdiction to decide this issue, as in execution proceedings the court cannot go behind the decree. Deduction of tax deducted at source is in fact a matter between the judgment debtor and the Income-tax Department. It would be open to the Income-tax Department at the time of making assessment for the relevant years to assess the receipts in the hands of the decree holder in accordance with law. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Ex. No. 106 of 1999 In view of the fact that the E A. No. 386 of 1999 stands dismissed and the fact that learned counsel for the decree holder states that the decree has been satisfied, the execution petition stands disposed of.
-
2000 (12) TMI 12 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
In the instant case, as stated earlier, even a question of law does not arise, not to speak of a substantial question of law. Moreover, in the present case, by the impugned order, the Tribunal even did not finally decide the factual dispute between the parties. It only remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the controversy afresh after giving proper hearing to the parties. No substantial question of law or even a question of law can arise from such an order. - It is clear from the foregoing discussion that this appeal under section 260A of the Act is wholly misconceived.
-
2000 (12) TMI 11 - SC ORDER
Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefits of registration in spite of contravention of rules 38 and 39 of the A.P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970 - Tribunal is directed to state a case to the High Court and refer the above question of law for opinion of HC
-
2000 (12) TMI 10 - SC ORDER
Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in having upheld in entirety the disallowance of the assessee's claim of a sum of ₹ 8,00,063 on account of demurrage and wharf age recovered from the assessee by the North, Western Railways, merely because a claim against the contractor was pending for arbitration - Appeal is allowed - Tribunal directed to refer the question to the High Court.
-
2000 (12) TMI 9 - SC ORDER
Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the market value of the assessee's right in the property at Delhi, was not Rs. 8,00,000 as assessed by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis of the report from the Valuation Officer - tribunal is directed to refer the question to HC - It will be open to the assessee to contend, that the valuation should be arrived at by employing the provisions of rule 1BB & HC shall take this contention into account when answering the question on its merits.
-
2000 (12) TMI 8 - SC ORDER
Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that in case capital gains arising from the sale of agricultural land are to be taxed, the assessee has the option to substitute its cost as on February 28, 1970, the date from which the agricultural lands, due to an amendment in law, became an asset - question of law arise - hence matter is directed to be referred to High Court.
-
2000 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
New Industrial Undertaking - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right of confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the assessee, engaged in cutting and polishing of diamonds, amounts to manufacturing or production of goods and is entitled to deduction under section 80-I - Held, no
-
2000 (12) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Banking Company - Interest On Securities - Rectification Of Mistakes - Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in canceling the rectification order of the Assessing Officer - Having regard to the difference of opinion among the learned judges of the High Court on the principal question, it is clear that there was a debatable question and no error on the face of the record which could be corrected by invocation of the provisions of section 154
-
2000 (12) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Purchase of Immovable Property - orders under challenge in these appeals by the Revenue followed the earlier judgment of 'the same High Court in the case of Pradip Raman lal Sheth v. UOI - held that appropriate authority had no power in ascertaining the discounted value of the apparent consideration - It is not open to the Revenue to accept earlier judgment of SC in the case of the assessee in that case & challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees without any reason
-
2000 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to depreciation u/s 32 and/or development rebate as claimed - Held, no
-
2000 (12) TMI 3 - SC ORDER
Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is correct and justified in law in holding that the expression 'an assessment' to be made u/s 143(3), used in section 144B, is confined only to the assessment to be made u/s 143 and does not cover reassessment to be made under section 147 of the Income-tax Act with the consequence that the procedure prescribed u/s 144B and extended time limit provided in the Explanation to section 153(1) is not available to reassessment to be made under section 147 - Held, no
....
|
