Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1995 1995 (2) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 365 of 365 Records
-
1995 (2) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... se of transparency of transactions more than an account payee demand draft. It appears to us that the omission to refer to an account payee demand draft in section 69D is probably inadvertent. The various decisions referred to in the order of the Tribunal about the nature of the cheque and a demand draft were rendered in the background of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act and those considerations are not germane to the purpose behind section 69D. In our opinion, the object of making disallowance under section 69D is only in the event of the transaction being unverifiable. When it is seen that the repayment by an account payee demand draft is equally efficacious in verifying the identity of the payee, we share the view of the Tribunal that an account payee demand draft also should be treated as an account payee cheque drawn on a bank for the purpose of the provisions of section 69D. We, therefore, answer the questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1995 (2) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Commencement Of Business, Fluctuation In Rate, Foreign Exchange, Revenue Expenditure
-
1995 (2) TMI 3 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Concessional Rate, Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... 1993 204 ITR 412, yet it would not have any bearing on the facts of this case. There the finding was that the assessee-company was a firm of contractors constituted for the purpose of construction of a dam in Orissa. The contention there was that the activity of constructing a dam was an industrial activity and the company was an industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 80HH. The Orissa High Court had taken the view that it was an industrial undertaking and that was reversed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, that decision does not directly apply to the facts of the present case where there is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee-company was carrying on manufacturing activities. In this view of the matter, we need not go into the other decisions cited by learned counsel for the Revenue. The question referred by us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The referred case is accordingly answered.
-
1995 (2) TMI 2 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Sales Promotion, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... a. This would certainly be the amount of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the promotion of sales outside India, on maintenance of agency outside India. Under the said sub-clause, it is not necessary that the assessee would get the benefit of weighted deduction only if a branch or office is maintained outside India. But that benefit the assessee would get, even if the work of promotion of sale is done through agency. Similar view is taken by-- (1) The Calcutta High Court, in the case of CIT v. Chloride India Ltd. 1992 193 ITR 355 (2) The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Pooppally Foods 1986 161 ITR 729 and (3) The Kerala High Court in the case of Srivilas Cashew Co. v. CIT 1992 196 ITR 887. Considering the aforesaid discussion and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the question raised in the present reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (2) TMI 1 - SC ORDER
Concealment of stock - petitioners are liable to pay the tax ... ... ... ... ..... the tax of Rs. 3,54,864 on the basis of the concealed stock of the value of Rs. 4,93,177 which was the value of the stock as estimated earlier under his order of March 28, 1985. We, therefore, find no substance in this petition. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
....
|
|