Home Case Index All Cases Income TaxIncome Tax Section Wise 2003 2003 2003 (5) Income Tax - 2003 (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

Income Tax - Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 107 Records

• 2003 (5) TMI 31 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Investment in the construction of a commercial complex - cost of construction – Tribunal rejecting the estimate of the cost of construction made by the Assessing Officer – Tribunal has given reasons for rejecting the same and accepting the report of the registered valuer – It is apparent that even the Assessing Officer has not accepted the estimate of the District Valuation Officer - Thus Tribunal was right in preferring the report of the registered valuer, which supported the cost of construction as declared' by the assessee - no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal - The findings of the Tribunal are pure findings of fact and suffer from no legal or factual infirmity. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and accordingly dismiss the same.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 30 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Once the marketing expenditures are excluded from the purview of expenses on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and such expenses do not fall in any other categories of expenditure detailed in sub-section (3B) of section 37, the question of invoking any part of section 37(3A), read with sub-section (3B) cannot arise - it is obvious that on account of marketing overheads or salary component of marketing expenditure is not an expenditure governed by sub-section (3A) and sub-section (3B) of section 37. Such expenses cannot be disallowed by referring to the inapplicability of Explanation (b) on the ground that the employees to whom salaries have been paid were not the employees of the assessee. The entire amount shared by the assessee as marketing overheads for running its business was one single indivisible expense incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business, hence allowable u/s 37

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  The only question involved in this appeal is regarding the valuation of the hotel building constructed by the assessee, over a period of eight years from 1983 to 1991. - Tribunal has considered each and every piece of material furnished by the assessee including the objections to the valuation made by the departmental valuer and the cost of construction assessed by the Assessing Officer. – Tribunal reduced the cost of construction substantially, which came down to Rs. 55,21,733, resulting in sustaining an addition of Rs. 15,42,968. - The valuation of the hotel building constructed by the assessee, over a period of eight years from 1983 to 1991 was correctly made by Tribunal

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Best judgment assessments in respect of all the four assessment years were framed under section 144 of the Act, on the basis of the material available on record - Tribunal has come to the conclusion that no notice under section 142(1) was served on the assessee and, therefore, the assessment order passed under section 144 was unsustainable. While holding so, the Tribunal has observed that the service of first notice by affixture was bad inasmuch as the procedure prescribed for effecting service by affixture was not followed by the Assessing Officer and as regards the second notice, nothing was brought on record to show that it was served on the assessee - finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted – said finding is essentially a finding of fact giving rise to no question of law

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 26 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Power subsidy received by the assessee-company - objects of power subsidy granted to an industrial undertaking on the percentage of its electricity bills is to meet a certain percentage of the expenditure on power - Tribunal was not justified in holding that the power subsidy received by the assessee-company was a capital receipt and therefore, not chargeable to income-tax

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 25 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Petitioners pray for quashing of an order passed by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C and a direction to the said authority to grant "no objection certificate" under section 269UL(3) - On a statement being filed under section 269UC of the Act, the appropriate authority has two options available to it, namely, (i) either to purchase a property by exercising the right of preemptive purchase by making an order under section 269UD; or (ii) if it is not inclined to purchase the property, to issue a "no objection certificate". It has no third option – Thus it is held that, it cannot also go into the question of validity of the agreement to transfer the property or the legality of the transaction or the title of the vendor – Petition is allowed

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 24 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Claim of deduction towards conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance – Held that assessee is entitled to get conveyance allowance and additional conveyance allowance as incurred by him – Held that assessee was entitled to any deduction as per actual expenditure incurred out of the incentive bonus paid to him by the employer, namely, LIC

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Accrual of income - whether the profits arising under various heads of terminated kuries accrue in the year in which the kuri has terminated - Tribunal ought to have considered the factual situation and entered a finding with regard to the relevant matters. - In the absence of any findings of fact on the relevant matters, we are of the view that the orders of the Tribunal which are the subject-matter of the appeals and references cannot be sustained - Tribunal is directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, an intimation making assessment under section 143(1)(a) could be rectified by resorting to section 154 after notice under section 143(2) has been issued for making a regular assessment under section 143 - held that the assessing authority was not justified in having recourse to the provisions of section 154 of the Act after the regular assessment proceedings came to be initiated and, therefore, he must proceed with regular assessment proceedings only – Revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal arises out of proceedings of rectification in intimation issued under section 143(1)(a), as the assessee in his return claimed deduction of the amount of cash deposit for obtaining the bank guarantee for satisfying the demand of bottling fee, in case he lost in the pending litigation - respondent is also right in his submission that the substantial question framed at the time of admission does not give the true picture of controversy for consideration in this appeal which arises out from the rectification proceedings by intimation under section 143(1)(a), and relates to the validity of rectification proceedings - question of deduction claimed by the assessee raises a debatable issue and cannot be considered as a mistake apparent from the record – Revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Expenditure incurred in restoring the swimming pool and the boundary wall – revenue/capital expenditure - Whether the swimming pool and the boundary wall have been constructed or reconstructed at the court's order that does not make any difference in the nature of expenses. Once the expenses are on the assets, which are of enduring nature that expenditure should be allowed as capital expenditure - Tribunal has committed error in allowing the expenses in question as revenue expenses.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether, Tribunal is right in law in holding that the tea development allowance under section 33AB, must be in relation to the income of the business of growing and manufacturing tea, rather than to the taxable portion of such income?" - We answer the question referred in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - original return disclosing a total income of Rs. 48,650 and after search, the assessee had filed a revised return showing a total income of Rs. 1,98,650, which would show that the assessee had offered an additional income of Rs. 1,50,000. The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment on a sum of Rs. 2,00,900, which shows that over and above the amount offered in the revised return, the AO has made a further addition of Rs. 2,250. – Held that assessee is entitled to immunity under the amnesty scheme in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,98,650, and the amount that can be subjected to penalty is Rs. 2,250 - if a revised return offering a higher amount is filed after the search and seizure, but prior to the issuance of notice under section 147, the return must be treated as voluntary and one filed before detection in respect of the amount offered in the said revised return. – Penalty rightly cancelled

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 17 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  "1. Whether, Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 21.76 lakhs on account of unexplained share application money? 2. Whether, Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of unsecured loan and interest paid thereon?" - A perusal of the aforesaid finding goes to show that the deletion has been made on appreciation of evidence, which was on record. Finding that there was existence of investors and their confirmation has been obtained, were found to be satisfactory. All these conclusions are conclusions of fact based on material on record and, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse so as to give rise to a question of law, which may be required to be considered in this appeal under section 260A – Revenue appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 16 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether, Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 10 of the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974?" - The submissions and the admitted fact that the assessee has estimated his "nil" income and that has been filed his statement under section 209A(2), no direction was given by the Assessing Officer under section 6 of the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974, for deposit of any amount under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act. Considering these admitted facts, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 15 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I on the enhanced income, notwithstanding the fact that the enhanced income was not earned from any industrial activity but by claiming false and excessive subsidy from the Government?" - We answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Rate of estate duty under section 34(1)(c) - We hold that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the interest of wives of the coparceners has to be excluded in determining the share of the lineal descendants which is required to be aggregated for the purpose of working out the principal value of the estate left by the deceased in order to determine the rate which could be applied as per the provisions of section 34(1)(c) of the Act

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Best judgment assessment under section 145(2) – rejection of books of accounts - assessing authority has also found that the gross profit rate during the current year showing the trading result was far below the gross profit rate shown in the previous year – Tribunal found that it was a case where the books of account have rightly been rejected by the Assessing Officer - instead of applying a flat gross profit rate, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs has been sustained by taking into consideration the relevant trading result shown by the assessee - Finding reached by the Tribunal is a finding of fact on appreciation of relevant material and does not give rise to any question of law – assessee’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 12 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Capital gain on the sale of plot - case of the assessee is that he is not liable to be assessed on the alleged sale of plot as there was no transfer to the purchaser in terms of section 2(47). According to the assessee, the conditions embodied in the agreement do not come within the ambit of section 2(47) as there was no transfer of the plot in favour of the purchasers - "(i) Whether, Tribunal was justified in concluding that the ap pellant had transferred the property in dispute within the meaning of section 2(47) during the assessment year 1991-92? – On giving anxious consideration to the agreement and general power of attorney, we find that there is nothing in it so as to hold that possession was delivered to the purchaser. Indeed, the Tribunal has not considered this material aspect of the case and, therefore, it will be appropriate to send back the case to the Tribunal

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Depreciation on guest house - "Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in allowing depreciation on guest house ignoring the specific provisions of section 37(4) prohibiting allowance of depreciation on guest house?" - Sub-section (4) of section 37 starts with a non obstante clause and specifically prohibits allowance of depreciation of any building used as a guest house. It is also not the case of the assessee that the guest house was maintained as a holiday home. Once a specific provision is there whereby depreciation has been denied, the general provision which relates to depreciation will not prevail over this specific provision. Therefore, the depreciation is otherwise also not allowable on the guest house maintained by the assessee. - In the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue

  ---

123456