|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 472 of 472 Records
-
1998 (9) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Permanent Physical Disability, Reduction In Earning Capacity ... ... ... ... ..... ingers, he is able to do his work as an assistant in the bank and earn the salary attached to that post. It is evident that this deformity had not the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment. The only material produced by the assessee was a certificate from the medical practitioner, certifying the existence of the deformity. No other material was referred to or relied on to show that the deformity had affected his capacity to engage in a gainful occupation or employment. 2. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in the view it took and in denying the benefit to the assessee under s. 80U of the Act for the asst. yr. 1980-81. 3. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us, viz., whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified and correct in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the deduction contemplated by s. 80U of the IT Act, 1961? against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1998 (9) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reference, Exemption, Educational Institution ... ... ... ... ..... ent years as well, the court had called for a reference in T. C. P. No. 227 of 1993 decided on June 28, 1995, which concerned the assessment year 1982-83, while in T. C. P. Nos. 292 and 293 of 1996, the assessment years in question were 1986-87 and 1987-88. We are, therefore, satisfied that the question, which the Revenue has proposed, viz., Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is an educational institution/hospital and is entitled for exemption under the provisions of sections 10(22)/10(22A) of Income-tax Act ? does arise, and is required to be referred to this court. The Tribunal is directed to refer the questions, and submit a statement of case together with the relevant material as is relevant for the purpose of deciding the question. The Tribunal shall state in its statement of case that reference has been called for, for the earlier years in the tax case petitions mentioned in this order.
-
1998 (9) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Provision For Gratuity, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... nswered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and we answer that question accordingly. 6. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as the scheme adopted by the assessee is one which has been found by the CIT in respect of other assessees, who have adopted similar schemes, to be one which merits approval, as the scheme satisfies all the conditions required to be met for securing such approval, the assessee may be permitted to apply to the authorities concerned for approval, and if such approval is granted, to have the benefits of the approval for this assessment year also. We cannot direct the CIT to either grant or withhold the approval. We, however, permit the assessee to apply for such approval and depending upon the result of its application, it will become entitled to such benefits, as it may be able to claim on the strength of such approval. Any such application shall be made if the assessee is desirous of making it within a period of thirty days from today.
-
1998 (9) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Returns, Delay In Filing Returns, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... for the delay and has found them to be unacceptable. The mere fact that the assessee filed his returns for the earlier years with considerable delay, does not entitle him to claim that the delay in filing the returns for the later years also has to be condoned automatically. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order which had been made on January 5, 1989, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax waiving the interest for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. The order does not give reasons for the waiver. From the petition filed by the assessee for waiver, it is found that the other partner, V. D. L. Subbiah, died in the year 1985. It is apparent that it is that fact which had weighed with the Deputy Commissioner in granting waiver for those two years. That waiver has no bearing on the assessee s request for waiver of interest for these two assessment years. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is not in any way vitiated. The writ petitions are dismissed.
-
1998 (9) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Valuation Of Assets ... ... ... ... ..... s that only that amount which is still remaining to be paid shall be treated as a liability on the valuation date. If in the provision for taxation made in the column of liabilities in the balance-sheet, the amount of advance tax already paid is again shown as a liability, it will not be treated as a liability. The advance tax paid had already gone out of the profits and been debited in the account books of the company. It was held that this was the true function of both the sub-clauses. The Supreme Court in the process accepted the view of the Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana High Courts and differed from the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh 1981 129 ITR 46. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT 1994 207 ITR 1 the question referred to this court is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The references stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (9) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Assets ... ... ... ... ..... ment was made just to avoid disputes and to maintain the honour and dignity of the family and accordingly. it was held that the family arrangement was valid and the provisions of section 2(xxiv)(d) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, were not applicable. The instant case does not fall under that category. There is an immediate transfer of Rs. 3,40,000 by the assessee in favour of his minor son. There was also no existing dispute and rival claims. This settlement of Rs. 3,40,000 by the assessee on his minor son amounts to transfer without consideration and it clearly amounts to a gift to the minor son by the assessee. So, the finding of the authorities below that the interest accrued on this gift to the minor should be added to the income of the assessee under section 64(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act is perfectly justified and the order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. We answer this question in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1998 (9) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Condition Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... s produced only before the appellate authority. That fact, however, does not make any difference in so far as the purpose and object of that section are concerned and the manner in which they are to be advanced. The appellate authority under the Act has also the powers of the original authority. It is open to the appellate authority to direct the Income-tax Officer to receive the audit report or to direct him to consider the audit report filed before the appellate authority on the merits or to consider the report himself. The appellate authority, therefore, ought to have considered the report on the merits. We answer the question referred to us, namely, whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that section 80J(6A) is directory and not mandatory and hence the assessee is eligible for relief under section 80J even though the audit report was not filed along with the return of income as required under section 80J(6A) ? in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1998 (9) TMI 5 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reference, Business, Other Sources, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... n whether the deduction under section 80M was permissible to the assessee on gross dividend income or net dividend income by working out the same by reducing the pro-rata interest paid by the assessee from the gross dividend income is certainly a question of law. At this stage, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue we are simply forming an opinion (i) whether the question sought to be referred is a question of law, and (ii) whether it arises from the order of the Tribunal. On these two questions we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue. However, the suggested question No. 3 is merely an inferential one depending on the answer to questions Nos. 1 and 2. The petition is allowed. The Tribunal shall draw Lip a statement on the facts of the case and refer questions Nos. 1 and 2 out of the three questions set out in para. I and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (9) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest – advance tax - The petitioner has challenged the rejection of the application filed by it before the CBDT for waiver of interest on the sum of Rs. 3,62,042 being the amount by which the first instalment of advance tax paid by it fell short of 20 per cent. of the tax liability - petitioner, submitted that the order of the Central Board Direct Taxes is illegal and arbitrary and requires to be set aside. It was submitted that under section 119(2)(a), the Board is bound to consider the case put forth by the assessee and after affording such opportunity as may be necessary to the assessee, make a reasoned order – Held that no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner. The petitioner like all other assessees to whom these provisions are applicable has to pay the interest required to be paid thereunder.
-
1998 (9) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Penalty – concealment – search - disclosure – voluntary/involuntary - object of section 273A is to limit the reduction or waiver of penalty only to cases where the disclosure is voluntary, is in good faith, is full and complete and is made prior to the detection. The scope of the term "voluntarily" may vary depending on the context. Having regard to the context in which it occurs in section 273A(1)(b) and having regard to the scheme of the Act, it must be held to refer to disclosure made by the assessee wholly divorced from compulsion or provocation resulting from search and seizure. - Section 273A cannot be read as a charter for an assessee who has deliberately concealed his income to claim immunity from penalty after a search had been made in his premises and incriminating materials seized
-
1998 (9) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deducibility of the amount paid as contribution to the provident fund – Allowability of amount paid towards unexpired portion of the route permit as revenue/capital expenditure – Allowability of the amount paid to the Chief Minister's Drought Relief Fund – Deductibility of the amount paid by the assessee to the Government in order to enable the Government to credit the amount so paid to the provident fund account of the Government employees who were at that point of time working in the Assessee-Corporation
-
1998 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Recovery - Attachment of an immovable property being a residential house of the assessee - contention of the respondents that the Tax Recovery Officer has no power u/r 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, to declare as void a transfer of property effected by the assessee during the pendency of proceedings against him under the Income-tax Act on the ground that the transfer was with the intention to defraud the Revenue, is accepted
....
|
