Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 454 of 454 Records
-
2002 (5) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
"Whether, Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263?" - Law Applicable - The apex court in CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. has held that the consequence of the amendment made with retrospective effect is that the powers under section 263 of the Commissioner shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in an appeal. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had not decided the question with respect to bonus, incentive and interest to the partners, the depreciation on generator at 30 per cent. and investment allowance of Rs. 7,554 to the firm in order to fulfil the conditions laid down under section 32A. Thus, the Commissioner of Income-tax has rightly exercised the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the purpose of revising the order of the Income-tax Officer on the aforesaid items. - Thus, the question referred is decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (5) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
"1. Whether, Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(c)? - 2. Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is leviable even though they have held that the assesses has committed a default without reasonable cause? - 3. Whether Tribunal is right in observing that the words 'deductible' or 'collectible' used in the amended provisions of section 272A(2)(c) with effect from October 1, 1991, mean the amount of tax which remains to be 'deducted' or 'collected'? - 4. Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the monetary limit in respect of penalty under section 272A(2)(c) prescribed with effect from October 1, 1991, was applicable to defaults committed earlier as well? - 5. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that proviso to section 272A(2)(c) was a procedural provision and, therefore, applied to all pending matters?" - As regards questions Nos. 1 and 2, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 272A(2) - As regards question No. 3, we are unable to agree with the reasonings given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal - The questions Nos. 4 and 5 do not survive
-
2002 (5) TMI 12 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereby directing grant of depreciation at 30 per cent. on rig machines not used for exploration of mineral oil as per item IIID(7) of the depreciation schedule." - the question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2002 (5) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
The only question sought to be raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that since the amendment made in section 139(8) where any regular assessment is made for the first time, whether under section 143 or under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of levy of interest, it is still governed by the provision of section 139(8). - in the present case from the finding of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the original assessment for the assessment year 1988-89, was made on December 2, 1986, (sic) and thereafter reassessment was made by resorting to section 148. No interest was levied in the course of the original assessment. The interest has been sought to be levied by way of reassessment under section 147. Apparently, the contention raised by the Revenue is ill founded on the facts. In view of the meaning of "regular assessment" which has already been determined by the Supreme Court and the provisions of section 138 have also made it clear that reassessment under section 147/148 is deemed to be a regular assessment only in such cases where assessment under sections 143 and 144 is not made in the first instance. - Apparently the facts of the present case does not fall within the ambit of deeming provision.
-
2002 (5) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Notice under section 148 - since the petitioner has already sought reasons from the concerning authorities, it is expected from them to supply the reasons for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act to the petitioner within a reasonable time and if any objections are submitted, thereafter it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to decide the same. Since in the present matter the above procedure has not been followed by the Assessing Officer, the respondents are now directed to supply reasons for issuing notice under section 148 to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order
-
2002 (5) TMI 9 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Disallowance of sales tax – Additions on account of difference between the collection and payment of tax - mercantile system of accountancy being followed by the assessee - Tribunal deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the reassessments on account of the sales tax - - no substantial question of law arises in this revenue’s appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
-
2002 (5) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Notice for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 - whether when the first reopening of the assessment has been set aside by the Tribunal, can this second reopening be done or not - The confessional statement of Jethanand Madhavdas is the basis on which a belief has been arrived at by the Income-tax Officer and the same having been affirmed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is sufficient for reopening of the assessment - Therefore, it cannot be said that there are no materials to arrive at a belief of the escapement of the income during the relevant assessment year – Held that impugned notice is valid
-
2002 (5) TMI 7 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Search - Assessing Officer has objectively considered the material available with him and has reached a bona fide conclusion about the nature of accounts placed before him that there had been admitted sales out of account books - The day-to-day balancing has not been done. The stocks of three firms were lying in common place and their bifurcation was not possible in such contingencies to identify separate dominion of the petitioners firms on the stocks available - The exercise undertaken under section 142(2A) will be of substantial assistance and thus the case of the petitioners as stated and made out before this court falls short of making out a case wherein it cannot be said that an exercise has been taken by the respondent-Department which is not in conformity with the provisions of section 142(2A) - The writ petition having no force is dismissed.
-
2002 (5) TMI 6 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Caim for exemption from levy of capital gains u/s 54B on the ground that the land sold by her was agricultural land and the sale proceeds were invested in the purchase of agricultural land within two years - there is no merit in the contention of Revenue that no agricultural operations had been carried on in this land in the preceding two years and that the agricultural income shown in the returns by the assessee was not genuine. - Findings of the Tribunal that there was material on record to show that the land had been used for agricultural purposes is based on cogent and relevant material. The Revenue record supports the claim. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the conditions laid down for claiming relief under section 54B stood satisfied. Once it is so, the other contentions about the land being located in the commercial area or the land having been partially utilised for non-agricultural purposes or that the vendees have also purchased it for non-agricultural purposes, are totally irrelevant considerations for the purposes of application of section 54B – Exemption allowed
-
2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, can an AO while assessing a company for income-tax under section 115J of the Income-tax Act question the correctness of the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee-company and certified by the statutory auditors of the company as having been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act - No, Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit
-
2002 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of sections 269SS and 271D - single judge of the Madras High Court quashed the prosecution initiated against the respondent by holding that section 269SS is violative of article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, the prosecution initiated against the respondent was not legal - held that impugned sections are valid, not violative of Constitution of India
-
2002 (5) TMI 3 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Service Tax – Transport services - Receipt of goods directly from suppliers ... ... ... ... ..... t operator in relation to carriage of goods by road in a goods carriage. Goods Transport Operator - has been defined in Section 65(17) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 which is to the effect that goods transport operator means any commercial concern engaged in the transportation of goods but does not include a courier agency. From the said definition of goods transport operator , it is evident that the Service Tax is leviable only on the services provided by a commercial concern engaged in the transportation of the goods. Inasmuch as in the present case, the appellants have received goods directly from the suppliers of the Coke, who have themselves undertaken the deliveries of the goods at the appellants door-steps, it cannot be said that the appellants received the services of any commercial agency. The said suppliers cannot be held to be transporters. As such, the Service Tax was not payable. Accordingly, I allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
2002 (5) TMI 2 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Service Tax – Appeal to Commissioner - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ance Act, 1994. Sub-section (3) of this Section provided a period of three months for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The provision contained in the proviso to this section for condoning the delay in appropriate cases for a further period of three months. This provision has not been changed. The appeal had therefore been filed within time. 4. The departmental representative is unable to provide an answer. 5. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant appears to be correct. The appeal was filed in terms of this specific provision contained in Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. It was therefore incorrect to apply the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The appeal had therefore been filed within time before the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order set aside. That authority shall now hear and dispose of the stay application and thereafter the appeal filed before him in accordance with law.A
-
2002 (5) TMI 1 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Service Tax – Penalty on Architects ... ... ... ... ..... . 4. On the other hand, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has admitted the grant of interim stay by the Hon ble High Court of Madras but has observed that the appellants were out of jurisdiction of that High Court and hence the stay order was not applicable to them. As such, he has concluded that the appellants have knowingly delayed the deposit of Service Tax and filed returns justifying imposition of penalties upon them. 5. After giving my careful consideration to the issue find that admittedly the Hon ble High Court of Madras had granted 8195 involved, I the interim stay to the operation of the provisions of Service Tax in respect of Architects. In these views of the matter, the action on the part of the appellants in not depositing the Service Tax cannot be called mala fide so as to justify the imposition of penalties upon them. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of the penalties upon the appellants and allow the appeals. Stay Petitions also get disposed of.
....
|