Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1998 1998 (12) 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 401 to 410 of 410 Records

• 1998 (12) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Wealth Tax, Reassessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... re on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose the material facts. If the Assessing Officers are not alert and allow the time to elapse they cannot thereafter, as a matter of course, seek to justify the reopening by casting the blame on the assessee. The assessees are expected to place before the Assessing Officers all the primary facts and not suppress anything that is material. Once that is done it is for the Assessing Officer to accept it or make his own estimate of the amounts required to be considered for the purpose of assessment. We do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. The question referred to us, namely Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act are not attracted in this case and accordingly in cancelling the reassessment made for the year 1971-72? Is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

  ---

• 1998 (12) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Question of double taxation must be decided having regard to who the assessee is. If the assessee is different, the question of double taxation would not arise - Whether, addition tax paid on dividend when distributed to share holders and thereafter further tax on it amounts to double taxation - Held, no

  ---

• 1998 (12) TMI 8 - SC ORDER
  

  Co-operative Society - Exemption - While we sympathise with what the assessee is doing, we do not think that its activity can be said to provide "credit facilities" to its members. Therefore, the High Court has rightly held that the provisions of section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable. The appeals are dismissed

  ---

• 1998 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  In the present case, the liability of the respondent to Lucas (England) is to issue to Lucas (England) equity shares of a value equivalent to the amount advanced by Lucas (England) for the plant and machinery. It is only if, for any-reason, the shares cannot be allotted that the question of compensating Lucas (England) in cash might arise - hence it can not be said that there was a debt owed by the respondent to Lucas to be taken into account for the purposes of computing the capital u/s 801

  ---

• 1998 (12) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Constitutional validity of section 44AB - challenge is on behalf of the income-tax practitioners. It is submitted that they are entitled to be authorised representatives on behalf of the assessees and that excluding them for the purpose of auditing accounts as aforestated violates articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution - it must be pointed out that these income-tax practitioners are still entitled to be authorised representatives of assessees - hence section 44B is valid

  ---

• 1998 (12) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Tribunal was right in directing that a sum of Rs. 64,577 being the deemed dividends assessed in the hands of the various shareholders in the past assessment years, should be deducted from the surplus while determining the 'accumulated profits' in the hands of the company

  ---

• 1998 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Assessee invested the amounts borrowed by it for the construction work which were not immediately required, in short-term deposits and earned interest - entry which was initially made as interest was reversed in the next year because in fact the nature of the transaction was changed and the assessee did not receive any real income - HC has rightly held this entry as not reflecting the real income of the assessee and hence not exigible to income-tax - Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

  ---

• 1998 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the refund of annuity of ₹ 12,013 to the assessee as executor of the estate of his late father Padam Shree N.N. Mohan was his income and assessable in his hands is executor of the estate of the deceased - Held, no

  ---

• 1998 (12) TMI 2 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax – Commissioner of Central Excise passed order of service tax maintainability – Plea to the Appellate Tribunal against such order

  ---

• 1998 (12) TMI 1 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax – Stock Broker – Assessee contented that he being new assessee and unaware of provision regarding to taxable service – Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit service tax

  ---

1 ....1718192021