Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1998 1998 (10) 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 341 to 349 of 349 Records

• 1998 (10) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax, Reassessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... paid as the registering authorities had their own method of evaluating properties. On the facts, it has been found by the Commissioner that there is no material to show that the assessee had received excess consideration. So, it is seen from the records that the properties gifted were not for inadequate consideration and the consideration appears to be reasonable. The information received by the Gift-tax Officer on the audit report would not be a valid ground to come to the conclusion that the transfers were for inadequate consideration. The decision reported in CGT v. Indo Traders and Agencies (Madras) P. Ltd. 1981 131 ITR 313(Mad) states that unless the price was such as to shock the conscience of the court, it would not be possible to hold that the transaction is otherwise than for adequate consideration. The records reveal that the contention raised by the Revenue is not sustainable. We answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

  ---

• 1998 (10) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, False Verification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... those statements were taken as the basis by the assessing authority originally to hold that a false return has been filed. Therefore, in the context of this case, I am of the view that the very basis for assessment having been knocked out, the prosecution which is the child of such assessment must, therefore, be allowed to die a natural death. However, on reassessment, if the Department comes to the conclusion that prima facie offences under section 276C of the Income-tax Act and section 277 of the Income-tax Act have been committed, then it will always be open to the Department to initiate criminal action. Therefore, in my opinion, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings, however, without detriment to the right of the Department to file a fresh complaint, on the basis of the result of the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, Crl. M. P. Nos. 5605 and 5606 of 1997 shall stand closed.

  ---

• 1998 (10) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Company, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the expenditure specified in any one or more of the following clauses, namely --- (a) expenditure in connection with--- (i) preparation of feasibility report (ii) preparation of project report . . . (other provisions are not relevant). A reading of section 35D makes it clear that the expenditure in connection with the preparation of feasibility report should be incurred before the commencement of the business. In other words, a decision should be taken proposing to set up a specific or definite business. If an expenditure incurred in connection with such decision, then section 35D of the Act applies. Otherwise not. On the facts of this case, no decision has yet been taken to set up a new business. On the other hand, the intention of the assessee is to utilise the surplus funds profitably and effectively. In the light of the above, we answer the questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1998 (10) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty, Concealment Of Income, Jurisdiction To Levy Penalty, Law Applicable

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nly at that point of time that the authority who has the power to impose the penalty, needs to be identified. In this case, the assessment, admittedly, was made long after April 1, 1971. It is the date-of the assessment, which is the relevant date for identifying the officer, competent to initiate penalty proceedings. The income concealed was, in this case, less than Rs. 25,000 for each of the assessment year. As the assessment was made after the amendment to section 274(2) of the Act, the penalty was leviable by the Income-tax Officer. The first question referred to us is, therefore, required to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As regards the second question, the answer is neither the date of filing the return, nor the initiation of penalty proceedings, which is relevant, but it is the date of the assessment order, which is relevant for identifying the authority competent to initiate penalty proceedings. The parties to bear the respective costs.

  ---

• 1998 (10) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Export Business, Special Deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... es are to be brought into India is a matter which is governed by the procedural aspect of the section which fixes the time limit, which time limit is not rigid but is capable of being extended by the Chief Commissioner. Rules of procedure are not meant to be straitjackets by applying which the affected persons should be denied relief to which they may be entitled otherwise. If the circumstances were established by the assessee such as to warrant the exercise of the discretionary power of the Chief Commissioner, relief is not to be denied on the ground that the application was filed after the time granted earlier had expired and the monies were brought into India after such expiry. The order of the Commissioner, therefore, is not sustainable and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Chief Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the course of this order. Consequently, W. M. P. No. 2164 of 1997 is dismissed.

  ---

• 1998 (10) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Charitable Purposes, Charitable Trust, Exemption

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the income from out of which that expenditure is incurred, would not be liable to tax. The expenditure, if incurred in an earlier year is adjusted against the income of a later year, it has to be held that the trust had incurred expenditure on a religious and charitable purposes from the income of the subsequent year, even though the actual expenditure was in the earlier years if in the books of account of the trust, such earlier expenditure had been set off against the income of the subsequent year. The expenditure that can be so adjusted can only be expenditure on religious and charitable purposes and no other. As the impugned order has not been made in conformity with the law as set out above, the impugned order will have to be, and is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, No costs. Consequently, W. M. P. No. 4099 of 1994, is dismissed.

  ---

• 1998 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Sub-s. (2) of s. 279 is a provision which enables the CCIT/Director General to compound any offence either before or after the institution of proceeding. There is no warrant in interpreting this sub-section to mean that before any prosecution, a SCN should be given - The enabling provision cannot give a right to a party to insist on the Chief CIT/Director General to make an offer of compounding before prosecution - trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance will law

  ---

• 1998 (10) TMI 2 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax – Stock Broker – Transaction among broker of one exchange to a broker of another exchange does not convert the latter into an investor

  ---

• 1998 (10) TMI 1 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
  

  Service Tax – Stock Broker – Delay in furnishing of ST-3 return and payment of service tax – Penalty imposable

  ---

1 ....1415161718