Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1999 1999 (1) 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

Case Laws

Showing 321 to 333 of 333 Records

• 1999 (1) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty, Concealment Of Income, Reference, Application To Direct Reference

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ot available and, as such, for the ascertainment of the same, the case was remitted back to the Income-tax Officer. The order of the Tribunal is to the effect that an amount of Rs. 85,622 pertained to the year previous to the assessment year 1980-81 and was available as reserve and, as such, the order of the Income-tax Officer clubbing that amount of Rs. 85,622 as the income for the assessment year 1980-81 stood set aside. As a necessary corollary, the levy of penalty on the above component also stands set aside. We have decided these points straightaway instead of directing the case for reference and then ordering the reference, which will take another decade. To the above extent, the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside. Now, the concerned Income-tax Officer, shall decide the details of the profit-sharing ratio of the outgoing partners and then arrive at the balance and pass orders afresh. The income-tax case is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 12 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Reference, Search, Firm, Registration

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ly show his ignorance. It would not make him a benamidar . Madan Lal was not a partner. His statement without having been put in evidence before the assessee-firm could not be used against the firm. It was necessary to confront the assessee-firm with the statement before drawing an adverse inference therefrom. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact on the basis of the material on record. The statement of Surinder Singh was seen by the Tribunal and it was noticed that he had admitted in clear terms that he was a partner. Similarly, the statement of Madan Lal was also examined by the Tribunal and, on noticing that the assessee-firm was not confronted with that statement, the Tribunal declined to use it against the firm for drawing an adverse inference therefrom. No referable question of law, therefore, arises from the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. The petition has, therefore, no merit and is dismissed.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  TDS, Compulsory Acquisition Of Land, Writ

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... -tax. At present under section 197(1A) one can submit a declaration in writing in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the person responsible for payment for not deducting tax considering their total income. As already stated, the income-tax authorities were not made parties in the original petition. Exhibits P-1 and P-2 also show that the amount was already remitted to the Income-tax Department. Therefore, the prayer for direction to the second respondent to deposit the above amount to the Sub-Court, Palakkad, cannot be granted. If the petitioners feel that they are not liable to pay income-tax considering their total income for the relevant years, especially in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Gupta s case 1990 181 ITR 530, it is for them to make an application for refund to the Income-tax Department, or to use the income-tax deduction certificate according to law. There is no merit in the original petition and it is dismissed.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Company, Surtax, Delay In Filing Return, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e construction which goes in favour of the assessee subject. We find support for all this from the judgments of various High Courts reported in CIT v. Anchor Pressing (P.) Ltd. 1982 136 ITR 505 (All) CIT v. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. 1985 154 ITR 561 (Delhi) and Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 1971 80 ITR 627 (Cal). Viewed thus, we hold that no penalty was leviable for late filing of the return by an assessee under section 9 of the Act and that it could be levied only in the case of failure by the assessee to file the requisite return without any reasonable cause. In the present case, the assessee had not failed to file the return. The company had only filed it late before the assessment was made. Its action was, therefore, saved both under sections 5(3) and 9 of the Act and to that extent both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal had decided the issue correctly. We affirm the view taken by them and answer the stated question in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 9 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment, Legal Representatives

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... odify the question and reframe the same as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment was invalid and a nullity in the absence of service of notices on all the legal representatives of the deceased-assessee, Roshan Lal ? The Tribunal is accordingly directed to refer the aforesaid question of law to this court along with the statement of the case for its opinion. Petition stands disposed of.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Reference, Rectification Of Mistakes, Drilling Machines, Investment Allowance

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ment allowance was in conformity with the ratio of a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. 1993 204 ITR 412 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding cancellation of the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer on October 19, 1992, despite the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. 1993 204 ITR 412, on the ground that the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court was passed on September, 7, 1993 and, hence, it would not be applicable to the order dated October 19, 1992, of the Assessing Officer under section 154 in the case ? It is a debatable matter whether after the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. 1993 204 ITR 412, whether section 154 of the Income-tax Act can be invoked or not. Let the statement of the case be called from the Tribunal on the aforesaid questions of law.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax, Reference, Question Of Law

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... les, thus, making a deviation from the view earlier taken by the Supreme Court in CGT v. Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Late Sh. Ambalal Sarabhai 1988 170 ITR 144 and Renuka (D.) (Dr.) v. CWT 1989 175 ITR 615, in which it was held that rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules was directory, In view of the same, a referable question arises out of the Tribunal s order and as such, we direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law to the High Court for its opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the gift-tax assessment order and directing the Assessing Officer himself to reframe the assessment de novo by holding that the market value of unquoted equity shares of a going concern could be determined for gift-tax purposes only according to the yield method only and not as per the break-up method provided in rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957? The gift-tax case is accordingly allowed.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Reference, Question Of Law

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... unal. Otherwise also, it is contended that from the findings of the Tribunal the answer to the question is self-evident. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the order of the Tribunal. There is a clear finding of the Tribunal that the services were rendered in France. The Tribunal has categorically observed that it was never the case of the Revenue that the payments in question were for the services rendered in India. That being so, under art. XIV(1) of the DTAA between India and France, the remuneration received by the employees for the services rendered in France cannot be subject to tax in India. 4. In view of art. XIV(1) of the DTAA, sub-s. (2) of s. 90 of the Act and the categorical finding of the Tribunal that the remuneration in question was for the services rendered in France, we are of the clear opinion that the proposed question is not a referable question of law. 5. These applications are, therefore, rejected and the rule is discharged.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Interest on Borrowed Capital, Limitation, Matter Remanded

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... out of time without jurisdiction. A reading of the bank s letter dated October 11, 1989, shows that they are going to debit the uncharged interest. As there is no finding by the Commissioner on the bank s letter, I feel it is just and proper to remand the matter back to the Commissioner to hear the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the bank s letter dated October 11, 1989. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that as soon as the bank has charged the interest, the petitioner has rushed to the income-tax authorities claiming that it is allowable expenditure. I agree with the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The findings of the Commissioner that the petitions were out of time is set aside. The Commissioner of Income-tax, first respondent herein, is directed to pass appropriate orders. The impugned order is quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 4 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ng the controversy in issue (refer 1976 105 ITR 133). We are also not in a position to agree with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the afore-given three reasons amount to palpably erroneous error of law in exercise of discretion by the authorities concerned. On the contrary, we have already held that the reasons stated for declining the reference are well in consonance with the settled cannons of law governing the subject. Having cogitated over the matter and for the reasons aforestated, we do not find any error of jurisdiction or otherwise in the impugned order. We are constrained to hold that the view of the Tribunal in declining the reference to this court is fully justified and thus, we decline to issue any direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, to state and refer the aforesaid question, as question of law, to this court in exercise of its power under section 256 of the Act. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - held that the reference on the penalty appeal did not survive and it answered the questions thereon accordingly. We do not have the record of the penalty appeal before us so as to be able to decide the reference thereon. Having regard to the conclusion that we have reached on the quantum appeal, it is clear that the reference on the penalty appeal shall have to be decided on the record on the basis of the Tribunal's findings of fact

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Appellant purchased cloth and on that cloth embroidery work was done with the aid of imported machines. In some cases the cloth was thereafter dyed again to obtain an uniform colour. It said that, "after the embroidery finished product is something which in the realm of textile would be considered to be cloth entirely different from the basic cloth on which such embroidery work was done" - Held that machinery is entitled to the development rebate under section 33(1) (b) (B)(i)

  ---

• 1999 (1) TMI 1 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax – Belated in filing of return – Penalty – No show cause notice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... explain the delay in filing the return. He also reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 4. By the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of two appeals. One filed by the appellant and one by Shri S.R. Khandelwal. The Tribunal in the appeal filed by Shri S.R. Khandelwal vide Final Order No. A/576/98-NB, dated 1-6-1998 allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held as under I have seen the records of the case and have heard the submissions of both sides. On merits, the appeal requires consideration inasmuch as the entire tax liability had been met in time and no notice was served on the appellants under Section 70(2). In Similar cases, where no tax liability was involved, the Tribunal has set aside the penalty vide the aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 5. In view of the earlier order of the Tribunal which is against the same impugned order, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

  ---

1 ....1314151617