Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2001 2001 (5) 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 441 to 456 of 456 Records

• 2001 (5) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... and also that the assessee is not liable to be charged to tax at maximum rate under section 164(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961? We are of the opinion that so far as question No. (iii) is concerned, whether the trust is a specified trust of known beneficiaries, and the share of each beneficiary is determinate or is an unspecified trust, is a finding of fact, which cannot be required to be referred to this court. So far as other two questions are concerned, two Bench decisions of this court in respect of the very same assessee for the earlier years have rejected like applications under section 256(2) for raising the very same questions in the case of CIT v. Poonam Chand Manmal Trust 1988 171 ITR 153, and by a common order two Income-tax Applications Nos. 72 and 73 of 1982 made by the Revenue were rejected vide order dated January 11, 1995 (CIT v. Poonamchand Manmal 1995 216 ITR 373). In view of the aforesaid, this application is also rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 15 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... heirs and two daughters in equal shares as per the will. In other words, the Tribunal was of the view that this was not a case of disbursement of income after having been earned by Smt. Prabha but transfer of income at source by operation of the will, as heir of her husband. On this finding, the shares of the daughters were directed to be deducted from the income of Smt. Prabha Gupta now through her legal representative and only her share was allowed to be taxed in her hands. The application of the Revenue under section 256(1) for referring the aforesaid question of law has been rejected by the Tribunal by a common order. Therefore, the question as raised by the Revenue is not a referable question of law and it is totally a question of fact. Having heard learned counsel, we are in agreement with the Tribunal that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law arises as the Tribunal has decided the issue only on the facts. Both the applications stand rejected.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hat during the pendency of this appeal, the appellate authority has assessed the income as minus Rs.9,030 and further directed a refund of Rs.40,642 for the year 1986-87 to the firm, Sahni Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., 42-A, Friends Colony, New Delhi. In view thereof, he further submits that no proceedings could have been initiated since there is no tax payable much less not exceeding Rs.3,000. At this time, Mr. Jolly, appears on behalf of the Department. He submits that a week s time be given to him to ascertain whether the appellate order is under challenge before the Tribunal. Having heard learned counsel, I am not inclined to adjourn this matter further. This petition has been pending in this court since April 5, 1991. There is nothing on record to show that the appellate order is under challenge. I am, therefore, satisfied that no complaint, in the given circumstances, could have been filed. Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 800 of 1991 is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e Act by the Assessing Officer. As regards the expenses on conferences and clinics we are of the view that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and had rightly held that the expenditure incurred on the same was part of the charitable activities and the Assessing Officer was wrong in his view that the expenditure was incurred on non-charitable activities. The claim of depreciation allowed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the reasons given in his impugned appellate order was also proper and justified. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee primarily challenged the question as to the reasonableness of salary. That plea was accepted in view of the conclusions for 1995-96. As the extracted portion of the order passed by the Tribunal goes to show the conclusions are essentially factual giving rise to no question of law. Accordingly, we do not entertain this appeal. Dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... her hand, submitted that after analysing the factual position, the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal came to hold that the explanation offered by the asses see was not acceptable and the case was clearly covered by the Explanation to clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the conclusions are essentially factual giving rise to no question of law. The question whether in a given case the explanation offered by the assessee is acceptable or not is essentially one of fact giving rise to no question of law. We find that the forums below have analysed the case of the assessee and the explanation offered by him and concluded that the source of the loan allegedly obtained was not properly explained. This conclusion is also one of fact. That being the position, no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we decline to answer the question referred. The reference is disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... held that the decision referred to above had no application to the facts of the case. The matter was carried in appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. Here again the Tribunal did not discuss the factual aspects and merely held that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was applicable to the facts of the case. On being moved, the question as set out above has been referred for the opinion of this court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is fairly accepted that the question of deduction under section 80J would depend upon the question whether there was a new industrial undertaking. We notice that except the Income-tax Officer, no other forum has dealt with the factual aspects. That being the position, in our considered view, the matter has to be adjudicated afresh by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, instead of answering the question, we remit the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the merits. The reference stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ot exceed the limit specified under section 40A(3), section 40A(3) did not apply, but, on the facts in the instant case the finding recorded by the Tribunal is otherwise. The transaction having not been found to be split. There is no material placed before us to show that the transactions were split (sic). Similarly the ratio of decision in CIT v. Aloo Supply Co. 1980 121 ITR 680 (Orissa), has different factual matrix to operate. With respect to addition of Rs.1,50,000 it may be seen that the confirmation of the credit advanced by Ramesh Khandelwal was not filed even after notice. It has been found that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus and genuineness of the credit has not been found to be established. Both the questions raised are questions of facts based on appreciation of evidence and the findings are not shown to be perverse or such which could not be arrived at in a reasonable manner. Thus, we find no merit in the present appeal. Same is dismissed in limine.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 9 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Wealth Tax, Reassessment, HUF - initiation of proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, after the expiry of four years - "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that initiation of proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act was barred by limitation, which finding was arrived at by ignoring the amended provisions of law? - (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that after the partition of the Hindu undivided family, notices need to be served on all the erstwhile members of the Hindu undivided family, when service of notice upon a karta of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family was sufficient compliance to the requirements of law?"

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Charitable Purposes, Agricultural Income, Exemption - "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the agricultural income will not form part of total income for the purpose of computing the accumulation of income in excess of 25 per cent. of the total income as laid down under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the agricultural income will not form part of total income for the purpose of computing the accumulation of income in excess of 25 per cent. of the total income as laid down under section 11 of the Income-tax Act 1961?" - Section 10(1) of the Act excludes agricultural income and in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the reference as sought for is uncalled for.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Capital/revenue receipt - "non-compete agreement" - payment of the amount under the agreement has been paid to the assessee by Gillette Company to refrain from engaging himself whether directly or indirectly in any business which undertakes or is engaged in the manufacture or marketing or distribution of razor blades, shaving systems or shaving preparations. That amount cannot be taxed as revenue receipt, especially when no material has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to justify that the agreement dated December 15, 1996, is a colourable device – Revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 6 - SC ORDER
  

  Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the liquidated damages received by the assessee on account of breach of contract are nothing but a part of profit received from the industrial undertaking on which the assessee is entitled for deduction under sections 80HH and 80-IA - High Court, in our opinion, was wrong in dismissing the appeal in limine. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the High Court's order

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Purchase of Immovable Property - proceedings initiated u/s XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking t acquire certain properties on the ground that the consideration disclosed in the sale documents fell short of the real market value of the property - Whether, HC was justified in coming to the conclusion that the sum tendered by the Central Government, was beyond the stipulated period u/s 269UG, thus attracting the wrath of s. 269UH . resulting in abrogation of the purchase order - Held, yes

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Fair market value of the property in question was over the apparent consideration disclosed by 28.5 % - On that basis Appropriate Authority proceeded to acquire the property for the UOI, rejecting the explanation offered by the transferor - value, of the property either with reference to the apparent consideration or the f.m.v. determined by the Appropriate Authority is not of such magnitude as to call for any interference - HC is justified in setting aside the order for pre emptive purchase

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  According to the appropriate authority, the fair market value with reference to the first property was worked out at Rs. 35 lakhs and with reference to the other property at Rs. 42 lakhs- Whether, order of pre emptive purchase was vitiated - When relevant factors had been ignored by the appropriate authority, necessarily we find the view taken by the High Court in holding that the order of the appropriate authority is vitiated is correct.

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Purchase of Immovable Property by Central Government - According to the appropriate authority, the fair market value is assessed to be Rs. 96,85,650, thus resulting in an increase by 20 per cent. of the apparent consideration of Rs. 80 lakhs plus conversion charges of Rs. 1,04,000 - If a relevant factor is ignored, the order of pre-emptive purchase made becomes vitiated

  ---

• 2001 (5) TMI 1 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax - Contract Advertising Agency - Service tax on advertisement for yellow pages

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... uch as designing, visualising, conceptualising etc., then they will be liable to pay service tax on the charges made thereon. 5. It is apparent from this letter that the activity of printing and publishing yellow pages does not attract service tax. However, Service Tax is attracted on advertising agencies which are providing services to advertisers by conceptualising, designing or preparing advertisement. This circular was not considered by both the lower authorities. Further, there is no finding given on the question of applicability of time limit in the impugned Order. We, therefore, set aside the impugned Order and remand the matter to the Jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner with the direction to examine the chargeability of the activity in question to Service Tax in terms of Ministry s letter F. No. 345/4/97-TRU, dated 16-8-1999 and also to consider question of Time limit and unjust enrichment after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellants.

  ---

1 ....1920212223