Home Case Index All Cases Income TaxIncome Tax Section Wise 2011 2011 2011 (8) Income Tax - 2011 (8) 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 381 to 385 of 385 Records

• 2011 (8) TMI 15
  

  Penalty - Income escaping assessment - Reassessment - since there was a difference in tax of Rs.1,98,582/- between the original return and return dated May 7, 2007 filed in course of reassessment proceedings, tax on income to the extent of the said amount was concealed warranting invocation of penalty @ 100% and consequently, the appellant was served with a demand notice under Section 156 of the Act - on a plain reading of the aforesaid Section it is clear that for application of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, all that is necessary is that either there must be concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of such income - If an employee does not disclose the salary of 8 months and shows only the salary of 4 months in a year notwithstanding the fact that he worked as employee for full 12 months, such act definitely comes within the meaning of concealment so as to attract the aforesaid provision - There is also no reason to interfere with the quantum of penalty as only an amount equivalent to 100% of the tax evaded has been imposed where as the maximum amount is 300% - Decided against the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 12
  

  Gifts - Gift received through cheque in kind in form of Immovable assets - genuiness of gift - love and affection - cash credit - addition u/s 68 read with section 56(1) - Held that: - There are pure findings of facts recorded by the two authorities below on the basis of evidence adduced which was sufficient to discharge the onus as well as burden caused upon her by proving the identity of donors, their credit worthiness as well as genuineness of the gifts. It has been established that the assets of Sh.Ashok Jain as on 31.03.2003 including movable/immovable assets were of Rs.1.25 crores, whereas the liability owned by Sh.Ashok Jain was only Rs.11.88 lacs less Rs.10.78 lacs. Keeping the assets owned by Sh.Ashok Jain we are of the considered view that he had the capacity to make gifts in question.

  All gifts are absolute and without any lien of anyone. There is no evidence on record to prove that the assessee has favoured the donor in any manner whatsoever by acquiring the gifts in question. The capacity of any person does not mean how much they earn monthly or annually, but the term capacity has vided term and that can be perceived by how wealthy he is. All the formalities, as per law are met by the assessee and donors as well. All the donors have admitted that they are great admirer of the assessee as she is working for the upliftment of poor people. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 10
  

  constitutional validity of Section 194LA - if the amount of compensation was paid immediately after the Award, then there would have been no question of deducting tax at source under Section 194LA - The object of Section 194LA as per the CBDT Circular No.5 of 2005 dated 15th July 2005 is to curb the tendency of evading taxes by not reporting the income comprised in the compensation received on acquisition of immovable property - the argument that Section 194LA purports to imposetax on the cost of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act is without any merit - the petition is dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 9
  

  Search and seizure - Block assessment - no enquiry of any sort was made by the Assessing Officer from the persons named in the seized paper or for that matter from M/s. Jamshedpur Cement Ltd. Mr. Khaitan, contends that in the circumstances, the Tribunal should have accepted the position that the seized paper did not reflect any actual transaction of purchase or sale of shares - It is rightly pointed out by Mr. Shome that additional evidence can be adduced before the CIT (Appeals) on compliance of the statutory provisions for acceptance of the same and formal application must be filed and at the same time, specific order must be recorded by the CIT (Appeals) allowing such prayer and specifying the point on which such additional evidence should be taken - Tribunal rightly held that the admission made by the assessee at the time of search was not properly explained and thus, the principles laid down in the above decision where the finding was based on surmise cannot have any application to the facts of the present case - Decided against the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 8
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Capital or revenue expenditure - Fees paid to ROC for increasing authorized capital - Depreciation - Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee that the assessee had, by mistake claimed depreciation of 40% on tippers and excavators and since it had itself revised the computation, it was a bona fide error - In respect of penalty on the wrong claim qua payment of fee to the ROC, the penalty has been deleted on the ground that explanation given by the assessee could not be called mala fide and no particulars were concealed in this behalf

  Regarding depreciation - it was a case of bona fide mistake as the assessee had claimed depreciation treating the earth moving equipment to be one block assets consisting of tippers and excavators and claiming depreciation @ 40% on the entire block of earth moving equipment - since the entire block consisting of excavators and tippers was taken under the head ‘earth moving equipment’, the explanation given by the assessee was that inadvertently, in respect of excavators are the depreciation was claimed at 40% instead of 25% - On the contrary, it was better for him to claim depreciation @ 25% in this year resulting into higher written down value in the next year for claim of depreciation of a higher amount on higher written down value thereby reducing the tax liability - Appeal is dismissed

  ---

1 ....1617181920