|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 192 Records
-
2005 (2) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Leviability of additional tax For the assessment year 1989-90, the appellant filed a return declaring losses. - Subsequently, it filed a revised return declaring loss of Rs. 1,07,35,100. The Assessing Officer issued notice to the appellant proposing to levy additional tax under section 143(A) on account of reduction in the net loss declared by it. - whether the amended section 143(1A) could be applied to the appellant's case in relation to the assessment year 1989-90. It is well-settled that the provisions of the Act, as the same stand amended on the 1st day of April of any financial year, are applicable to the assessment of that year - the return for the assessment year 1989-90 must have been filed after April 1,1989. Therefore, the law as it was obtaining on April 1, 1989, i.e., the amended section 143(1A) of the Act was rightly applied by the Tribunal to the assessee's case Assessees appeal is dismissed
-
2005 (2) TMI 67 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Computation of capital employed under section 80J - "Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the share application money of Rs. 3,05,000 received, but pending allotment on the first day of the computation period, i.e., May 13, 1979, is not to be treated as part of the capital for the purposes of computation of capital employed under section 80J?" - It is clear that the amount of share application money can only be deducted out of the value of assets, if it were to be treated as "borrowed money" or "debt owed," by the assessee. - The process of allotment of shares was still not over, there was no debt in existence owed by the assessee to any applicant on the first day of the computation period. - We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2005 (2) TMI 66 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Total income annual letting value of the godown - "Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the annual letting value of the godown owned by the assessee and used for the business carried on by him in partnership was not liable to be included in his total income under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - Tribunal did not commit any mistake in granting exemption to the assessee with regard to the property income from the property in occupation of a firm in which the assessee is also one of the partners. - In the result, we answer the aforesaid question in the affirmative, i.e., against the Department and in favour of the assessee.
-
2005 (2) TMI 64 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Interest charged under section 217 advance tax - "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the interest charged under section 217 of the Income-tax Act?" - it is not possible to accept the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue that even a "nil" statement of advance tax payable was required to be submitted. There being no such legislative intent discernible on a plain reading of the provisions of the Act, the impugned order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. - Even oh application of commercial principles, the Revenue has failed to make out any case in the absence of any legal right. - question referred to the court is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee
-
2005 (2) TMI 63 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Set off and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation - carry forward of unabsorbed business losses - distinction between unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed business loss for the purposes of set off and carry forward - Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to get unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years 1984-85 and 1985-86 set off in 1987-88 even if no valid return for the assessment year 1986-87 had been filed by the assessee - the appeal is partly allowed and it is held that in the absence of the assessee's filing a valid return and consequently, no order being passed by the Assessing Officer for set off and carry forward of business losses, for the assessment year 1986-87, the assessee could not be held entitled to set off and carry forward business loss during the assessment year 1987-88. However, the unabsorbed depreciation of the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 is to be set off from the business income of the assessment year 1987-88 and the unabsorbed depreciation is to be carried forward to subsequent assessment years.
-
2005 (2) TMI 62 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessee is a liquor contractor - "1. Whether, Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of retrenchment compensation though there was no retrenchment of workers or closure of business? 2. Whether, Tribunal was justified in treating the bottles used in liquor business as plant? 3. Whether, Tribunal was justified in treating the assessee as owner of the bottles used in its business though the ultimate ownership of bottles rest with the Government of M.P.? 4. Whether, Tribunal was justified in treating surplus in bottle deposit account as belonging to the customers and is not taxable income of the assessee?" - question No. 1 is answered in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax and against the assessee. Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are answered against the Commissioner of Income-tax and in favour of the assessee.
-
2005 (2) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - "Whether Tribunal was legally correct to hold that there was no obligation on the assessee to disclose the income which arose to his wife and so the assessments could not be reopened under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - Held that it was not required by the respondent-assessee to disclose the income which arose to his wife in the partnership firm in his return. It may be mentioned here that in the Income-tax Act the husband and wife are treated to be separate taxable personalities subject to the provisions of the Act, as such the provisions of section 64(1)(i) of the Act are not applicable. There was no question of inclusion of the income of the wife at the hands of the husband. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the proceeding under section 147(a) cannot be reopened by the assessing authority.
-
2005 (2) TMI 60 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
"Whether, Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the income from property and agricultural land belonged to the assessee in his individual status and not in the status of a Hindu undivided family?" - The plea of the applicant that the agricultural land and the self-occupied property belonged to the Hindu undivided family of the assessee was, however, rejected by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). - We, answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2005 (2) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
"Whether, Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 24,674 under the head 'Bonus to senior members of employees who are not entitled to receive the bonus under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, is an admissible expenditure' under the Income-tax Act?" - we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
2005 (2) TMI 58 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Firm assessment - "Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no assessment or reassessment of the firm or reduction or enhancement in the income of the firm and that the provisions of section 155(1) had no application to the instant case?" Held that Tribunal committed illegality in not giving the comprehensive meaning to the word "assessment" mentioned in section 155 of the Act. The question of law referred to us is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
2005 (2) TMI 57 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Allowance of the expenditure incurred on scientific research - "Whether Tribunal was, in law, justified in allowing the relief on account of depreciation on capital expenditure on the cost of machinery and plant used for carrying out research and development?" - expenditure on scientific research under section 35 is allowable when such expenditure is laid out or expended or related to the business - It is not in dispute that the respondent/assessee had derived income from consultancy services, preparation of feasibility report and other connected activities. Thus it had carried on business during the assessment year in question and was entitled for allowance of the expenditure incurred on scientific research which was related to its business Question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee
-
2005 (2) TMI 56 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
"(i) Whether, Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of CIT (Appeals), who deleted the addition of Rs. 1,38,860 made on account of value of "bardana" used for storing "churi" and "korma"? (ii) Whether Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals), who directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the sale of "churi korma" out of total turnover while working out the deduction under section 80HHC?" - Question No. (i) is answered against the Department. As regards question No. (ii), the case is remanded to the Tribunal with the direction that it should decide the appeal afresh by assigning cogent reasons.
-
2005 (2) TMI 55 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Special audit - Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of appropriate writ, order; particularly, the writ of certiorari quashing the direction/order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, directing special audit under section 142(2A) for the block period - In the case at hand, the books of account as well as other records seized during the search and seizure on December 18, 2002 have rightly been considered by the Assessing Officer before issuing the impugned direction - The mere fact that the petitioners have submitted audited accounts and therefore there is no occasion for directing special audit, is of no help to the petitioners - We see no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly
-
2005 (2) TMI 54 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Property principles of valuation - the report of the valuer is merely a piece of evidence which could be rejected by the authority concerned if it was found unreliable according to the accepted principle of valuation and in case it was rejected the authority had either to get a valuation done by the departmental valuer or otherwise as the case may be or it could be valued by itself following the accepted principle of valuation and in case it did not do so, in that event, if there were sufficient materials on record to arrive at a reasonable valuation, in that event, such valuation could be accepted by the authority in a proceeding under the Income-tax Act. Held that Tribunal had the responsibility to value the property following the accepted principles of valuation
-
2005 (2) TMI 53 - KERALA HIGH COURT
"Whether, Tribunal right in granting depreciation under section 32 for the building occupied by the assessee-company by reversing the first appellate order confirming disallowance in assessment?" - controversy arose because the assessee-company admittedly is not the owner of the building under general law of the land inasmuch as the firm which constructed the building on the land belonging to it has not transferred the title to the land or the building to the assessee-company but only allowed use of the building by the assessee under an agreement - So long as the assessee has no enforceable right of title over the building against its actual owner, the partnership firm, the assessee's claim of depreciation as its owner is untenable and was rightly rejected by the Assessing Officer and confirmed in first appeal order of tribunal is set aside
-
2005 (2) TMI 52 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Question of law - Whether enhanced compensation of about Rs. 14.75 lakhs received by the appellant is taxable in the year of receipt or is taxable only when it is finally determined to whom the amount, or part thereof - Tribunal has extracted the relevant portion of the order passed by the Assessing Officer which clearly indicates that for an effective determination of the issue arising in the case, it is absolutely necessary to know the amount of compensation that was actually received by the appellant unconditionally and the amount that was received on his furnishing a bank guarantee. It is only then that it can be determined, as a matter of fact, what is the amount of compensation received by the appellant no substantial question of law arises in this regard - Appeal is dismissed
-
2005 (2) TMI 51 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Whether the allowance of claim of Rs. 1,84,375 as bad debt out of the dues shown at Rs. 6,61,723 in the books of account could be justified under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) - No collusion between the assessee and its debtor has since been established or found by any of the authorities. Therefore, the irrecoverability cannot be questioned and as such the irrecoverable part excluded in the award, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, satisfies the ingredients of section 36(2) and is a bad debt allowable for deduction under section 36(1)(vii). - We answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and hold that the assessee is entitled to allowance of the claim of Rs. 1,84,375.
-
2005 (2) TMI 50 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Penalty recording of satisfaction by AO - Revenue contended that the Tribunal has fallen in error of law in coming to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had not recorded his satisfaction for initiation of penalty as contemplated under section 271(1)(c) Held that the Assessing Officer is under an obligation to record satisfaction prior to the initiation of the penalty proceedings in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The order of the Assessing Officer should apparently show that there is application of mind. Held that present appeal does not raise any question of law much less a substantial question of law in terms of section 260A - We see no reason to proceed with this appeal any further.
-
2005 (2) TMI 49 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reasons for reopening of assessment - notice issued by the respondent-officers invoking the provisions of section 147/148 - principal ground of challenge was that the notices by themselves did not disclose as to under what circumstances the reopening was proposed Argument of assessee are not considerable as assessee had approached this court in the earlier round of litigation by filing a writ petition and this court had an occasion to direct the respondents to furnish reasons within a stipulated time and the respondents have complied - That having happened, there is no further scope to go back to this aspect yet again in this writ petition writ petition is dismissed
-
2005 (2) TMI 48 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
"Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the rectification order dated March 31, 1986 under section 154 by the Income-tax Officer in respect of the assessment order dated March 25, 1982 was barred by time on the ground that unamended provisions of section 154(7) were applicable?" - AO passed an order u/s 154 for the purposes of reworking the depreciation allowance - Impugned order of the Tribunal holding that the rectification order was barred by limitation is not correct. There is no indication in the context of the amendment Act, nor is there any express provision which would prohibit the assessing authority from passing an order of rectification within the extended period of limitation. There is no dispute that the period of limitation under the unamended provision had not expired when the amendment was made in the statute - The question referred to the court is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue
....
|
