|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 192 Records
-
2005 (2) TMI 47 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Building tax - "Whether, Tribunal is right in law in holding that the building tax paid Rs. 1,98,609 under the Kerala Building Tax Act is allowable business expenditure under section 30(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" - When section 30 specifically covers deduction of expenditure or taxes, we do not think the Legislature intended such item of expenditure being considered for deduction under the residuary head of section 37(1) of the Act. In such a situation we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and hold that the building tax paid under the Income-tax Act is not an allowable business expenditure either under section 30(b) or under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
2005 (2) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Validity and/or legality of the notices issued under section 148 - petitioners submit that all the notices and the proceedings initiated thereunder are without jurisdiction and illegal since none of the conditions precedent for assumption of the jurisdiction u/s 147 have been satisfied - It is evident that even according to the Central Board of Direct Taxes, a mere change of opinion cannot form the basis for reopening a completed assessment – petition allowed – notices are quashed
-
2005 (2) TMI 45 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - the assessee explained the cash amount which was found in his possession, though it was not accepted by the assessing authority - even if it is presumed that the particulars have not been properly disclosed by the assessee, mere omission from the return of the amount does not amount to concealment - There is nothing on the record to suggest that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee in furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Even no circumstantial evidence found from which it can be gathered that the omission was attributable to an intention or desire on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal the income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon - In the aforesaid circumstances, I hold that Tribunal was justified in concluding penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable
-
2005 (2) TMI 44 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
"Whether Tribunal is justified in setting aside the assessment order with a direction also to decide the issue of jurisdiction under section 124 and to pass an order in accordance with law which question the said Assessing Officer has already decided in this order dated March 13, 1995, and thus the Tribunal should have decided the issue of jurisdiction itself?" - Revenue fairly states that in the face of the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer on the issue of jurisdiction, the Tribunal should have itself adjudicated on the issue and should not have remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision on the same issue – Revenue’s appeal is allowed – Order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to it for fresh adjudication of the appeal filed by the assessee.
-
2005 (2) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital gains - definition of 'land appurtenant' as given in section 5(1)(ivc) of the Wealth-tax Act - - Land appurtenant to the building does imply that the ownership of the building and the land appurtenant should be of the same person. If the building is owned of one person and the land is owned by another person then it will be a case of land adjoining to the building and by no stretch of imagination can it be called land appurtenant to the said building. In the present case we find that the land is adjoining to the building and, therefore, the benefit under section 54(1) of the Act would not be available. - Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the conditions as prescribed under section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act were not fulfilled in the assessee's case and thus he was liable to capital gains
-
2005 (2) TMI 42 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal was right in confirming disallowance of the assessee's claim for exemption on export profits u/s 80HHC of the Income-tax Act - Held that petitioner who is proved to be a supporting manufacturer is not entitled to claim exemption without production of a valid disclaimer certificate in time issued by the Export House in Form No. 10CCAB. - The other question pertains to the confirmation of disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-I - The other question pertaining to deduction under section 80-I in respect of industry engaged in fish processing and packing is also decided against the assessee
-
2005 (2) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT
During the previous year, the appellant debited royalty of Rs. 8,84,09,109 in its books of account. This consists of (i) Rs. 6,33,27,801 for which tax was deducted and paid during the previous year and (ii) Rs. 2,50,81,308 for which tax was deducted during the previous year, but was paid after the end of the previous year but within the time allowed under Chapter XVTI-B read with rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules except for an amount of Rs. 5,81,868. The Assessing Officer disallowed deduction of Rs. 2,50,81,308 u/s 40(a)(i) on the ground that the said section, tax should have been deducted and paid within the previous year - authorities had found it as a matter of fact that the payments of the tax deducted at source were made within the prescribed time. Another pertinent aspect of this case is that against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax the assessee had preferred an appeal but the Department never came up with an appeal before the Tribunal. The scope of the appeal preferred by the assessee has no relation to the amount for which no tax has been deducted as such the scope of the appeal was itself limited which even was partly allowed. – Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as having no merit
-
2005 (2) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
"1. Whether, Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant-trust is a discretionary trust and, hence, maximum marginal rate of tax has to be applied? - 2. Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the rectification deed effected by the authority would not relate back and could not cure the alleged defect in the trust deed? 3. Whether Tribunal was justified in refusing to follow the general principle of law, viz., when the shares are not specified in the deed, the beneficiaries take the shares in equal proportion? - Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the income was not actually received by the beneficiaries and it is open to the Revenue to make a direct assessment on the trust. – Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the point raised by learned counsel for the assessee that since the Revenue has already exercised the option to tax the beneficiaries, it is not open to the Assessing Officer to assess the income of the trust in the hands of the trustee, we answer the questions of law referred to us in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, but with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the question afresh whether it is permissible for the Revenue to assess the income of the trust in the hands of the trustee and whether the Revenue has actually exercised the option while making the assessment on the beneficiaries
-
2005 (2) TMI 37 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Incentive bonus received by the assessee - assessee is an individual and is a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India - "Whether, Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction amounting to Rs. 18,000 from incentive bonus received by the assessee?" - held that the incentive bonus received by a Development Officer is assessable under the head "Salary" and deduction against the same is only allowable under section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and no separate deduction on account of expenditure is permissible - Tribunal was not justified in allowing the deduction of Rs. 18,000, in addition to the standard deduction, out of the incentive bonus received by the assessee. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee
-
2005 (2) TMI 36 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
"Whether the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without assigning any reason?" - The order is, one without reasons. A judicial or quasi-judicial order, not disclosing reasons, is bad in law. Merely setting out the facts and contentions will not make the order, a reasoned order. Hence, we answer the question of law in the negative and as a consequence find that the order has to be set aside on the limited ground.
-
2005 (2) TMI 35 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
"Whether, Tribunal is right in holding that the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is invalid and also in deletion of additions made on account of unproved loans and cash credits?" - A bare perusal of the aforesaid notice dated October 10, 1991, clearly indicates that the officer was wanting to know the details with regard to the source of funds with regard to purchase of the said flat for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000. Obviously in the above, there is no question of the Assessing Officer having any basis to reasonably entertain the belief that any part of the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and that such escapement was by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. – revenue’s appeal dismissed
-
2005 (2) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest Tax Act, 1974 - "Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the hire purchase finance charges and service charges do not constitute chargeable interest under section 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act for the purpose of interest-tax assessment?" - Appellate Tribunal has found that it is not the case of the Revenue that the hirer is the real purchaser of the asset and the assessee is only a financier to help the purchaser and such things are not coming out from the agreement. We, therefore, hold that the finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is a finding of fact and there is nothing to interfere with the said finding
-
2005 (2) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Interest Tax Act, 1974 – revision - "Whether, Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of assessment under section 8(2) of the Interest-tax Act 1974, is erroneous and prejudicial, to the interests of the Revenue and the Commissioner of Income tax has properly exercised his jurisdiction under section 19 of the Interest-tax Act 1974?" - we answer the question against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax).
-
2005 (2) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits - Tribunal was not justified in holding that the facts relating to the cash receipts were not borne out by the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the order of the learned Tribunal was not based on record, it is perverse - Whether the purported findings of the Tribunal upholding the addition of Rs. 1,05,625 on account of loan taken by the assessee from Subh Karan Pincha are based on any material and/or have been arrived at by ignoring the relevant materials and/or by taking into consideration irrelevant materials and/or are otherwise arbitrary, erroneous and perverse?" - we set aside the order of the learned Tribunal upholding the addition of Rs. 1,05,625 on account of loan taken by the assessee and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer to consider it afresh
-
2005 (2) TMI 31 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Property – rental income - "Whether, Tribunal was justified to hold that the rental income should be assessed as income from business in place of income from house property assessed by the Assessing Officer?" - held that letting out of the premises by the assessee was only temporary to generate income and, therefore, the rental income should be treated as business income - All the assets were not let out. Only a few of the assets of the business were let out and that too temporarily with an intention of exploiting them. The finding is that there is no intention to close down the business. Nor is there any intention that the assets will cease to be business assets - we find no error in the order of the Tribunal.
-
2005 (2) TMI 30 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Deduction - scheme of subsidy through its "Fertilizer Industry Co-ordination Committee" (FICC) - submitted that the Revenue should not be permitted to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner by refusing deduction of the amount which the petitioner would be called upon to pay in subsequent years, whereby the petitioner is required to adjust the amount or make payment where no recovery is to be made of outstanding bills, and at the said point of time in the relevant accounting year, when such adjustment/payment takes place, the petitioner must be granted appropriate deduction from its taxable income - It is the case of the petitioner that, some time in 2000-01, FICC discovered an error in the computation of retention price right from 1982 and, therefore, decided to recover the excess subsidy, which according to FICC was paid to the petitioner - petitioner would be entitled to make claim of the amount which it is called upon to refund as and when it actually makes the payment and considering the statement made on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim deduction qua such payment from its taxable income in the year in which such payment is actually made – petition allowed
-
2005 (2) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rectification of mistake under section 254(2) - petitioner is challenging the order dated August 28, 2003, passed by the Tribunal with regard to a miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner for rectification of mistake under section 254(2) - After hearing both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view, that the Tribunal ought to have heard the petitioner and also ought to have dealt with the specific contentions regarding factual errors, by giving proper findings. Hence, we do hereby, quash and set aside the said impugned order dated August 28, 2003, and remand back the matter to the Tribunal to consider the said miscellaneous application for rectification of mistakes, to be decided strictly on its own merits in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
-
2005 (2) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Delay in payment of tax – penalty - "Whether finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the assessee has a reasonable cause in not paying the tax is based on any material evidence on record?" - Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal holding that the assessee had not committed default to warrant institution of penalty proceedings as far as the assessment year 1996-97 is concerned
-
2005 (2) TMI 26 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
TDS - "1. Whether Tribunal was justified in concluding that penalty has been levied against a wrong person and hence, not sustainable even when penalty who has committed default under section 203 read with section 194C of the Income-tax Act? 2. Whether Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the person as used in section 203 was different from the person responsible for paying as used in section 194C even when the provisions of section 203 speak of a person deducting tax in accordance with the provisions of section 194C? 3. Whether Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 204 r.w.s. 2(35) were not attracted even when the person as stated in section 203 has to be defined with reference to the provisions of section 194C and section 204?" – held that appeal fails and is dismissed
-
2005 (2) TMI 25 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition to the extent of ₹ 5,47,69,105 being the alleged additional price towards purchase of milk, sanctioned on the last day of the accounting year, i.e., March 31, 1984?" - expenditure in question cannot be termed to be application of income in the absence of any evidence as to accrual of profits - payment of additional/final price made on the last day of the accounting year is allowable under section 28 of the Act, being a necessary deduction for ascertaining real profits on principles of commercial accounting – and payment in question is alternatively allowable under section 37 of the Act, having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business carried on by the assessee - question referred for the opinion of the court is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
....
|
