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 181 to 192 of 192 Records

• 2005 (2) TMI 24
  

  "Whether Tribunal is right in holding that the deduction under section 80TT is admissible on the net amount of prize money of Rs. 10,80,000 and not on the gross lottery prize of Rs. 12 lakhs as per the provisions of section 80TT read with section 80B(5) of the Income-tax Act which were in force in the assessment year 1978-79?" - calculation of computation has to be made under section 80TT taking Rs. 10,80,000 to be the net income and accordingly, benefit has to be worked out in favour of the assessee - Tribunal was right in granting benefit under section 80TT on the net amount of Rs. 10,80,000

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 23
  

  "Whether Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the return signed by Mr. K.K. Varshney was a valid return as he acted as an agent of the assessee and also in further holding that the loss claimed therein should have been considered in correct perspective?" - we do not find any legal infirmity in the order. We accordingly answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 22
  

  "1. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that expenditure made on account of royalty payment was allowable as revenue expenditure? 2. Whether Tribunal was justified in allowing expenditure of Rs. 10,39,045 treated by the Assessing Officer as unreasonable and not deductible as per the provisions of section 40A(2) and section 35A of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 21
  

  "Whether Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition which was made by disallowing a reimbursable expenditure of the like amount, incurred by the assessee on behalf of its principal, the Government of India even though the said expenditure was not the assessee's liability?" - it is clear that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the assessee was following a hybrid method of accounting consistently in respect of these transactions. The excess price was being debited to the trading account on the basis of payment. Similarly, the subsidy was also being accounted for on actual receipt basis. Counsel for the applicant has not been able to controvert the factual position as noticed above. It has not been shown to us that in subsequent years, the method followed by the assessee has not been accepted by the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the view taken by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not require any interference. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 20
  

  Applicant, tax resident of UK is registered in India as a Foreign Institutional Investor (FII) with the SEBI - applicant, as trustee of Universities Superannuation Scheme, a FII will not be entitled to opt out of the provisions of section 115AD which deal with the taxability of the income earned by a FII, and cannot claim to be covered by s. 48 r.w.s. 112 together with indexation provisions for computing capital gains/losses arising to it from its investment activities in India.

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 19
  

  Applicant who carry systematic & organised course of activity in the matter of holding shares, is engaged in business of holding shares of various companies. "A" Limited and "B" Limited are Indian companies, which are wholly owned subsidiaries of the applicant – Whether the loan advanced would be taxable as the applicant's income by way of deemed dividend - since advance ruling has to be in relation to the tax liability of a non-resident, impugned application is not maintainable so rejected

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 18
  

  Applicant, a resident company, has taken a loan of US $ 34,00,000 from Rabobank of Singapore - As per para, (c) of schedule 5 of the loan agreement detailing with general terms and conditions, the tax liability of the Rabobank (a non-resident) is to be borne by the applicant and payment of interest is to be made net of all taxes – held that interest paid to M/s. Rabobank will constitute income in the hands of the non-resident and TDS under section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is deductible

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 17
  

  SMPL, applicant is an advertisement concessionaire of a company registered in U.K. and is carrying on business of publishing magazines from London – applicant collecting advertisement charges from the Indian advertisers in overseas publications, such collections being in Indian currency, converting them to foreign currency and remitting the same to UK comany would tantamount to accruing or arising of deemed income in India u/s 9 of the Income-tax Act to the non-resident

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 16
  

  Settlement Commission hold that the prayer made by CIT, to declare the settlement order passed by the Commission, to be void and for withdrawing the benefits and immunities granted to the assessee was not acceptable - not it is held that Voluntary disclosure and making a full and true disclosure of the income are necessary preconditions for invoking the Commission's jurisdiction- hence Commission is directed to re-hear the matter

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 15
  

  There was some confusion in the mind of the Tribunal when it proceeded to consider the case of the appellant for deduction on a ground that the loan in question was taken from HFC which is a bank contemplated under section 43B(d)- in the interest of justice we think an opportunity should be given to the appellant to prove its case in regard to the liability to pay additional tax under section 143 (1A) and applicability of section 43B(d) - hence matter is remanded

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 13
  

  Penalty - Alleged that appellant concealed the fact relating to profit from the sale of machinery and building and accordingly liable for penalty - tribunal held that allegation was not correct and set aside penalty

  ---

• 2005 (2) TMI 12
  

  Investment allowance - Question raised (i) whether assessee-firm was entitle to investment allowance u/s 32A (ii) At what rate assessee-firm was entitle for depreciation on generator wheather at the rate of 10% or 30% - Held (i) entitle for investment allowance (ii) at the rate of 10%

  ---

1 ....678910