|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 460 Records
-
1999 (11) TMI 884 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the time stipulated for filling the return. But there may be circumstances where the rigour of provisions has to be softened. Even the application for extension of time may be for the reason that the accounts were not complete and if that was the position the accounts could not have been audited. In any case the finding which has been recorded, that there was reasonable cause, cannot be considered to be perverse or illegal in any manner. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty u/s 271B. The penalty under section 271B cannot be considered to be leviable in every case. It appears that the provisions of sec.273B were not specifically mentioned by the Tribunal in its order and therefore, the proper interpretation of law would be that penalty u/s 271B can be levied if there is not reasonable cause. 7. Accordingly, both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
1999 (11) TMI 883 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . ORDER Delay condoned. Appeal admitted
-
1999 (11) TMI 882 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssion delivered so as to confer dominion over the property on the assessee whereafter the assessee had in its own right allotted the quarters to the staff and they were being actually used by the staff of the assessee. The assessee was entitled to depreciation in respect of the seven houses in respect of which the assessee had not obtained a deed of conveyance from the vendor although it had taken possession and made part payment of the consideration.” In the instant case on payment of a substantial amount, the assessee acquired possession and is running the factory and in view of these facts, the answer must be in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far as Tax Appeal No. 150 of 1999 is concerned, in view of our decision in ITR No. 23 of 1996, the answer must be given in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of the order be placed in Tax Appeal No. 150 of 1999.
-
1999 (11) TMI 881 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... r challenge. We find no good reason to interfere. The civil appeal is dismissed.No order as to costs.
-
1999 (11) TMI 880 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ny doubt or ambiguity in the notification because in our opinion there is now and notification is capable of only one interpretation as stated earlier, but only to indicate that the notification faithfully caries out the said Cabinet decision". 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to various judgments of this Court to persuade us to take a different view. However, after examining the aforesaid judgments in depth we do not find any reason to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the High Court. The language of the notification does not leave any ambiguity as the intention to exempt the Industrial unit from 10.12.1980 is evident. The High Court has dealt with various judgments cited before it before dismissing the writ petitions by the impugned reasoned judgment. 8. We agree with the reasoning as well as the conclusions arrived at by the High Court and find no ground to interfere. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
1999 (11) TMI 879 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the two aforesaid judgments of the Bombay High Court in Mangharam Chubarmal vs. B.C. Patel 1971 (73) BLR 140 and in Birdichand Hiralal Bhandari vs. Sadashiv Maruti Borhade (1972 (73) Bom.L.R. 887), which held the field for the last more than 25 years, is correct and there is nothing for this Court to take a different view of the matter. When Section 14 of the Act uses the expression "subject to the provisions of this Act" it does not merely mean that sub-tenant would become subject to the provisions of the Act after he becomes direct tenant under the landlord on the determination of the tenancy of the main tenant. What this expression means is that a sub-tenant cannot become a direct tenant in all circumstances, i.e., on all grounds of eviction against the main tenant but that would depend upon the nature of the ground of eviction as may be advanced and proved by the landlord. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals and we dismiss the same with costs.
-
1999 (11) TMI 878 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... condoned. The appeals are dismissed on merits.
-
1999 (11) TMI 877 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) 1995 (4) SCC 349 . Following that judgment, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (11) TMI 876 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. 1997 (92) E.L.T. 315 (S.C.) 1997 (5) SCC 767 . The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (11) TMI 875 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 1)(c), the AO has not made any observation that penalty has been initiated for default in furnishing inaccurate particulars. The contention of the learned counsel that penalty has been levied under s. 271(1)(c) for the offence of concealment of income after initiating the proceedings for some other reason would not apply for this year. 23. We may also clarify here that, for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 to 1977-78, we have cancelled the penalty not because there was no concealment of income by the assessee, but because the concealment of income had not been detected in the course of the search and so the assessee was entitled to the immunity under the Amnesty Scheme as clarified in the circular issued by the Central Board. In other words, our decision for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 to 1977-78 would not apply for the asst. yr.1978-79. 24. In the result the appeals for the asst. yrs. 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1980-81 are allowed and the appeals for the asst. yr. 1978-79 is dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 874 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... see has earned foreign exchange for the country by allowing the use of this telecasting rights to a foreign enterprise. The Legislature has removed the anomaly by specifically providing a deduction under section 80HHF with effect from 1-4-2000. 34. It may be pertinent to mention that section 80HHF applicable with effect from 1-4-2000 provides a specific deduction in regard to the transfer of film, TV, music software including telecasting rights. Sub-section (5) of section 80HHF specifically prohibits a deduction under any other provisions of the Act for the same assessment year if a deduction is allowed in respect of the profits under sub-section (1) of section 80HHF. Therefore there will be no double deduction to the assessee even when provisions of section 80HHF come into force. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 35. In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee against block assessment is allowed, the appeal against the regular assessment is partly allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 873 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on in computing the total income. So far as the claim of the assessee that the deduction has to be given on gross amount of dividend it is not in consonance with Sec. 80AA. It is the dividend which is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If in computing the income by way of dividend in accordance with the provisions of the Act the gross Amount and the net amount remain the same, then the deduction has to be allowed on such net amount. In these circumstances, we feel that the observation of the Tribunal to the effect that the deduction u/s 80m is to be allowed on gross amount of dividend is not in consonance with the provisions of Sec. 80AA. The procedure as provided under the Act has to be followed. That exercise may be done at the level of Tribunal or it may be directed to get it done by the assessing authority. 5. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the revenue against the assessee. ITRC stands disposed of with the above observations.
-
1999 (11) TMI 872 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the plantations. That, therefore, the interest paid by the respondent was allowable as a deduction under section 5(e) of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. In principle there is no distinction between interest paid on capital borrowed for the acquisition of a plantation and interest paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of an existing plantation Both are for the purposes of the plantation." In view of the above clear legal position and in view of the other decisions quoted above, including that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that allowing of ₹ 19,19,683 as interest and processing charges of ₹ 4,00,000 by the CIT(A) is perfectly justified. Hence, I am unable to find any merit in the second ground of appeal also. Therefore, it is dismissed. The third and 4th grounds are merely consequential and hence, they are all dismissed. 8. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 871 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ble opportunity of being heared." 11. We are concerned with the assessment year 1986-87 and default was committed on 30-7-1986, i.e., the date of filing the return. Therefore, the provisions applicable are those which are on the statute book as on the date of default. The Assessing Officer levied penalty 2 per cent per month by mistakenly taking into consideration the amended provisions. Penalty order was passed in 1991. However, as per section 140A(3), as it existed at the relevant point of time, i.e., at the time of default, penalty is not directly linked to the number of months and penalty is leviable at the discretion of the Assessing Officer subject to a maximum of 50 of the self-assessment tax payable. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has not exercised his discretion in the instant case. Considering the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that penalty of ₹ 5,000 under section 140A(3) would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 870 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ition, which fails and is hereby dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner then lastly submitted that since the detenu had already remained under detention for a period of ten months, before being enlarged on parole, he may not be sent back to jail, to undergo the remaining period of detention. The petitioner was detained, as already noticed, by an order made on 15th December, 1982. After he had suffered detention for a period of about 10 months, he was directed to be released on parole by this Court on 27th September, 1983. More than 16 years have now gone by. In our opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would now not be in the interest of justice to cancel the order of parole and direct the petitioner to undergo the remaining period of detention of about two months. We, therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, direct that the detenu need not now be taken into custody to undergo the remaining period of detention. RP. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (11) TMI 869 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... tax profit of ₹ 50 lakhs, and from the lawyer's notice at annexure M wherein he has complained that even though the company had made him a de facto director, yet, had not made him a dejure director and had also complained that the company had not convened an extraordinary general meeting to make him a director. As a matter of fact, in para. 31 of the petition, he had sought for handing over the management to him to the exclusion of the second respondent so that he could guarantee the profits of ₹ 75 lakhs per annum. 13. The settled principle of law in a proceeding under Section 397/398 is that the relief sought should be to put an end to the acts of oppression/ mismanagement and not for any oblique purpose. The very fact that the petitioner has targeted the second respondent leaving alone the managing director of the company, who is his own brother and represents his group, shows that the petition is not a bona fide one. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition.
-
1999 (11) TMI 868 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ay condoned. The appeal is admitted. No. stay.
-
1999 (11) TMI 867 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ks. So far as Girish Chand, D.S. Danda, M.S. Rana, Manohar Diwani, S.N.Gupta, S.K. Sindhwani, N.K. Gupta, Pushkar Sharma are concerned, Justice Jain held that they were above 30 years and hence their appointments were irregular. But, in view of the fact that they were already working in MCD and for such candidates the age was relaxable and there was consent' in the High Court for their continuance, the appellants cannot raise any dispute in this Court, so far as these candidates are concerned. No specific argument was advanced in respect of other respondents. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold in favour of the respondents and against the appellants on Points 3 and 4. The appeals arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.14160/98, 287-288/99, 289-292/99 are dismissed. Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C).....(CC 3960) is allowed, subject however to the modification pointed above in respect of the inclusion of Dalip Ramnani in the seniority at the 1 point of 182 marks. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (11) TMI 866 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... unsel. We find no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (11) TMI 865 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y reason of non execution thereof within a reasonable 5 time. From Annexure P.2 (the proceeding sheet of the M.M. Court Madras) it appears that the petitioner (accused) was present in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 25.2.1999 as well on 25.3.1999. 10 Despite such opportunities neither the detaining authority nor the executing agency as well as sponsoring authority were diligent to serve the detention order on the petitioner at the earliest. In this view of the matter, we 75 are of the opinion that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in issuing detention order dated February 25, 1999 is vitiated It is in these circumstances it is not possible for us to sustain the 20 detention order. 13. In the result the detention order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the detaining authority is quashed and set aside and the detenu is ordered to be released forthwith if not 25 required in any other criminal case. 14. The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.
........
|
