Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2002 2002 (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 481 to 491 of 491 Records

• 2002 (10) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Scope of entertainment expenditure - Expenditure on presents at the time of Diwali - While defining the scope of entertainment expenditure by the Explanation 2 to sub-section (2A) of section 37, the Legislature has widened the meaning and scope of the words "entertainment expenditure" and now entertainment expenditure includes expenditure on providing food or beverages or in any other manner whatsoever to any person. Even if gifts and presents are based on contract or custom or usage of trade, that can be treated as entertainment expenditure for the purpose of sub-section (2A) of section 37 – Thus Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the expenditure on presents at the time of Diwali is not in the nature of expenditure on entertainment

  ---

• 2002 (10) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, Tribunal was right in considering the commission paid to the managing director as the perquisite for the purpose of section 40(c)? - Whether, legal and professional expenses in respect of amalgamation of the sister concern with the assessee-company is allowable revenue expenditure?" - Whether, Tribunal has not erred in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 20,000 out of motor car expenses is not disallowable as personal and non-business use of motor car in the hands of the assessee? - Whether Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the depreciation as claimed and 1/7th portion of the depreciation of motor car is not disallowable?" – All the questions are answered in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2002 (10) TMI 9 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Payment of gratuity - section 36(l)(va) - disallowance of the claim for deduction of the contribution to the employees' gratuity fund not paid by the assessee within the due date for making such payment under law - "The expression 'due date' means the time stipulated for payment. As per the Explanation to clause (va) for the purpose of the clause, 'due date' means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit an employee's contribution to the employee's account in the relevant fund. The amount is deductible only if the assessee credits the amount to the employee's account in the relevant fund on or before the date by which he is legally or contractually required to do so. - It cannot be said that payment made beyond the due date also qualifies for deduction – Revenue’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2002 (10) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Depreciation - Whether Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the pond in the case of the assessee is to be treated as plant and is eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to plant and machinery?" – Question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. – Revenue’s appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2002 (10) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Invalid return - Notice issued u/s 139(9), intimating the petitioner, the defect in the return and called upon the petitioner to rectify the defect by submitting the statutory audit report under section 44AB by July 7, 1995. The petitioner on June 6, 1995, prayed that it was not possible for the petitioner to submit the audit report for want of appointment of auditors by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. It was requested that some more time be allowed in view of the provisions contained in section 139(9) for submitting the audit report. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax refused to grant further time treated the return as invalid – petitioner’s revision submitted u/s 264 before the CIT which was also dismissed - Held that that the circumstances of the case have to be taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment and deciding on the validity of a return – Order refusing to extend the time is bad in law - Thus, the order passed by the CIT is liable to be quashed. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the application and hear the petitioner

  ---

• 2002 (10) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Search and seizure u/s 132 - encashment of FDs – attachment under section 132(3) - Under the prohibitory orders, the bank accounts were attached, bonds were seized and FDs were also seized. However, during the period March to May 2002, respondent No. 1 encashed the FDs and Rs. 72,40,330 from the bank account of the petitioner – Held that action of respondent No.1 vis-à-vis appropriation was high handed. It is not supported by any provisions of the Income-tax Act, particularly when the appropriation is sought to be made without the assessment order - respondent No. 1 had no authority to encash the FDs or withdraw the cash, from the bank accounts without the order of assessment

  ---

• 2002 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether it is open to the Revenue to issue intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, after notice for regular assessment has been issued under section 143(2) - appeal of revenue dismissed

  ---

• 2002 (10) TMI 4 - SC ORDER
  

  Admittedly, the assessee a technician working with Siemens and drawing salary in Germany - he was not taxable in India and, therefore, his salary could not be included in the total income to be assessed in India - He was deputed by his company as a technical liaison officer to provide technical guidance to BHEL for which he was paid daily allowance. The said allowance was exempt from income-tax as per the notification dated February 21, 1989 - revenue appeal rejected

  ---

• 2002 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  High Court has set aside the order of Tribunal, remanding the matter back to the AO for the purpose of determining whether the assessees who had, admittedly, fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under section 35CCA, could subsequently become disentitled to the said deduction by reason of subsequent events - order of HC was within in its jurisdiction and hence appeal of revenue against that order is dismissed

  ---

• 2002 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Determination of the starting point in regard to payment of interest arising from the order of the Settlement Commission - matter be also referred to a larger Bench and preferably be heard along with CIT v. Damani Brothers - we direct that the papers of these appeals be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders

  ---

• 2002 (10) TMI 1 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax – Air Travel Agents - Refund

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... uestion of the grounds of review. He submits that there was no denial of natural justice. 6. 8195 We have heard the submissions of both the sides. We note in the instant case that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal. We also note that the issue also appears to have been covered by the clarification given by the Trade Notice of Mumbai-I Commissionerate vide their Trade Notice cited above. These documents were not examined and were not cited before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). We, therefore, consider it a fit case for remand. The Appeal is, therefore, remanded to the Commissioner concerned with the direction that he will re-examine the entire issue in the light of the Tribunal s decision cited above and in the light of the clarification given in the Trade Notice issued by Mumbai-I Commissionerate and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing the appellant an opportunity of being heard in person. 7. The Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

  ---

1 ....2122232425