Home Case Index All Cases Income TaxIncome Tax Section Wise 2005 2005 2005 (2) Income Tax - 2005 (2) 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 121 to 140 of 192 Records

• 2005 (2) TMI 89 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 – deemed gift - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the rules framed under the Stamp Act are not conclusive of determination of market value of properties? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was no deemed gift in the case?" - We are of the considered opinion that the rules framed under the Stamp Act cannot be pressed into service for determining the market value of the property and, therefore, there is no deemed gift in the present case.

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 88 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - continuation of registration under section 184(7) - As there was no change in the constitution of the firm or in the profit-sharing ratio amongst the partners of the firm, the Tribunal was justified in annulling the order declining the continuation of registration.

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 86 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty under section 271(1)(c) – unexplained cash - In none of the statements assessee had disclosed the names of the depositors from whom he had received the cash except a bare statement that the amount has been given by his friends and relatives. - Tribunal had considered the material and evidence on record and rightly concluded that the cash received by the applicant remained unexplained – penalty is sustainable

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 85 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Applicability of section 40(b) - "Whether remuneration paid as business adviser to a partner of the firm is covered under the provisions of section 40(b) or not?" - it is a case where the business adviser was rendering services to the respondent-firm and not to the company. Since he was a partner in the respondent-firm, the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act were clearly attracted. Payment has been made directly by the respondent-firm to one of its partners, namely, Sri Sardar Nanak Singh, for the advice rendered by him. - In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act are not attracted.

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 84 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Donations received by trust - Assessing Officer treating the donations received as income under section 68 - assessee’s submission is that once a donation is received, it will be deemed to be received for a charitable purpose unless the donation was received towards the corpus of the trust – held that assessee had not only disclosed its donations, but had also submitted a list of donors. The fact that the complete list of donors was not filed or that the donors were not produced, does not necessarily lead to the inference that the assessee was trying to introduce unaccounted money by way of donation receipts – There was, therefore, full disclosure of income by the assessee and also application of the donations for charitable purposes. It is not in dispute that the objects and activities of the assessee were charitable in nature - Held that Section 68 has no application

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 83 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Benefit of depreciation under section 32 - leased vehicles - it is clear that the claim of depreciation is not dependent on the actual use or the asset being put to use. It is dependent on the question of being used for the purpose of the business. When the leasing is the business, giving of a vehicle in lease even if it may not be used by the lessee on the date of the agreement but from the date of registration of the vehicle or thereafter even then it would be an use for the purpose of the leasing business of the assessee. It is the use of the vehicle by the lessor for the purpose of his business, which is material - we have found that the vehicle was leased out before September 30, 1986, falling in the relevant assessment year, which was used for the purpose of leasing by the assessee in the course of the business carried on by it. Therefore, depreciation is allowed for the assessment year 1986-87

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 82 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Perquisites - Foreign Technician - benefit claimed u/s 10(6)(viia) - "Whether assessee is entitled to the benefit u/s 10(6)(viia) in respect of the salary, including perquisites received by him?" - pre-condition to claim benefit u/s 10(6)(viia) is that such individual should be in the employment for carrying on scientific research or in any business carried on in India - In the present case, the scientific research was being carried on by M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Under an agreement with the Italian firm the respondent was deputed to perform the work. It is the own case of the respondent that he was not an employee of the Indian firm but the employee of the Italian firm and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was in employment with the Indian firm for the business carried on with the said firm. Thus, exemption under section 10(6)(viia) was not available - Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the exemption under section 10(6)(viia) is available.

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 81 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the hybrid method/system of accounting was permissible; if permissible, then could its consequences be avoided or ignored and the first proviso to section 145, as it stood for the respective previous years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, invoked for the purpose of holding that the income could not be deduced from such mixed accounting system. - In the present case, it is clear that the income can be deduced under the system maintained and was, in fact, deduced both by the Assessing Officer and the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the proviso to section 145, as it stood for the respective previous years, could not be resorted to and applied for the purpose of interfering with the system of accounting maintained by the assessee, in the absence of any finding that the accounts maintained were inaccurate or incomplete and that it was not possible to deduce the income therefrom.

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 80 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Relief under section 80C in respect of life insurance premium paid and National Savings Certificates purchased - "1. Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to relief under section 80C, in respect of purchase of National Savings Certificates to the extent of Rs. 5,000 purchased by raising a loan? - 2. Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80C of the Act in respect of life insurance premium paid in the sum of Rs. 17,915 and National Savings Certificates purchased to the extent of Rs. 5,000?" - we respectfully agree we answer question No.1 referred to us in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Question No.2 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 79 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether, it was open to the Tribunal to pass an order on the basis of written submissions filed by the departmental representative without assigning any independent reasons so as to reflect the application of mind by the Tribunal?" - as the facts of the case go to show, the impugned order of the Tribunal, if one can term it to be an order, on the issue of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act, cannot be sustained in law. The order dated November 3, 2003, in relation to the ground regarding deduction under section 80-IA of the Act is, hence, quashed and set aside – Held that Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order on the basis of written submissions filed by the departmental representative without assigning independent reasons so as to reflect application of mind by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 78 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Income from property - "Whether Tribunal is right in law in deleting the income from property known as 'Jadhav Bungalow?" - having regard to the object of the Act to tax the income, "owner" is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right - it is apparent that there is no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal which requires this court to interfere. The Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the income from property known as "Jadhav Bungalow" considering the fact that the assessee herein is not in a position to exercise his right as an owner, at least for the years under consideration. – Thus, question referred to the court is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 77 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Deduction under section 80HHC(1)(b) - "Whether Tribunal is right in law and on facts, in holding that deduction under section 80HHC(1)(b) is available at 5 per cent, on the increase in the turnover of two items separately though there is a decline in overall export turnover during the present assessment year as compared to the immediately preceding year?" – Held that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal which would require this court to interfere - Question referred to the court is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 76 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Interest levied under section 215 – under estimation of advance tax - 'Whether Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the interest levied under section 215 of the Act when the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed by the Tribunal and the advance tax paid by the assessee was less than 75 per cent, of the assessed tax?" - Nothing has been brought on record to rebut the finding of fact, viz., the method of valuation of closing stock being identical in past years. In the circumstances, it is not possible to state in the light of the scheme of computation of payment of advance tax that the assessee had committed any default by virtue of which, the assessee became liable to be charged interest under section 215 – Tribunal was right in law in deleting the interest levied under section 215

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 75 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty - "Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the official liquidator of the assessee-company in liquidation, who is an officer of the court and is a 'public servant', while filing the return of income of the assessee-company in liquidation acted in a bona fide manner and in good faith, which necessarily implies the absence of any fraud, gross or wilful negligence and was right in holding that there is no justification in sustaining the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the basis of such return of income furnished by the official liquidator?" - In fact, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer observes: "Thus, the managing director has cheated not only Government, but the public shareholders also." Once this finding was recorded in the light of the facts on record, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to impose penalty for concealment and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by resorting to the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) on the official liquidator of the company in liquidation – penalty rightly deleted

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 74 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Difference between the cost of construction shown by the assessee and the one assessed by the Departmental Valuation Officer - Unexplained Investment - Whether Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference between the cost of construction shown by the assessee and the one assessed by the Departmental Valuation Officer -we hold that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for determination in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 73 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Claim for exemption under section 54 - capital gains arising out of the sale of plot - reasoning given by the Tribunal to hold that the tin shed was not a house used by the assessee for his residence, is quite justified - It stands admitted that the structure on plot No. D-10 is only a tin shed surrounded only by barbed wire. There is neither any bathroom or kitchen nor is any electricity provided in the said shed - we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal that the tin shed on plot No. D-10, even if considered a house, was not occupied by the assessee or a parent of his for their residence in the two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. - Thus, the assessee is not entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Act on this ground alone

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 72 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty under section 271E – findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the provisions of section 269T of the Act is a finding of fact based on appreciation of material on record. It does not give rise to any question of law, much less substantial question of law - Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the Department and uphold the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in cancelling the order of penalty under section 271E

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 71 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Depreciation on electric furnace - "Whether Tribunal is right in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) finding that electric furnace comes under the category of 'machine tools' and is entitled to depreciation at 15 per cent.?" - the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 70 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, the compensation paid by a non-resident Mehta Group for loss of employment in India was 'profits in lieu of salary/within the meaning of the expression in section 17(3)(i) and, therefore, taxable as salary under section 15? - Till the insertion of clause (iii) in section 17(3), such an amount received by an assessee, namely, from a person who is not an employer, either before or after cessation of employment with that person, is not taxable. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the amount of compensation was taxable under the head "Salaries" within the meaning of the phrase "profits in lieu of salary". - Whether the Tribunal was right in law in taxing in the hands of the assessee Rs. 7,500 paid to advocate, Shri Raval, for his services in respect of Girnar Scooter Project?" - It is not possible to accept the finding of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 7500, was application of income or that it was not expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of making or earning income. -Both questions are answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 69 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty – Cash credits – filing of revised return - concealment - "Whether, Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) particularly when the assessee had surrendered the amount of cash credit in the revised return of income when it failed to prove the genuineness of the creditors - Tribunal concurred with the reasons assigned by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and held that the assessee by producing evidence in the form of affidavits of Naresh Kumar and two creditors has been able to prove the genuineness of the cash credits. In our opinion, the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal on the issue of source of income of the creditors, etc., are pure findings of fact - question of law framed by the appellant-revenue cannot be treated as a substantial question of law – appeal dismissed

  ---

1 ....345678910