Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2002 2002 (11) 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 501 to 520 of 520 Records

• 2002 (11) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Gift tax - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law and fact in holding that the surrender of share of 30 per cent. in the firm by the assessee is liable to gift-tax?" - Tribunal has entered the aforesaid finding keeping in mind the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court - According to us, the finding thus entered by the Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact - we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  "1. Whether, on an interpretation of section 43B r.w. the Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1), the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the contribution to the provident fund on actual payment basis even if the payment was not made before the 'due date' as defined in the Explanation to section 36(1)(va)? - 2. Whether, Tribunal is right in law in holding the' due date' as defined in the Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1) has application only in respect of any sum received by the assessee as contribution to the provident fund, etc., which the assessee as employer has to remit to the respective account? - 3. Whether, assessee's claim for deduction is to be considered u/s 43B(b) without reference to the second proviso?" - Question of law has to be decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether, assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B on sales made in India though against the foreign currency in the assessment year 1976-77?" - the entire expenditure on which the assessee had claimed weighted deduction was incurred in India on sales effected in India – Thus, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Penal interest to the first default of non-compliance of the provisions of section 42(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act or the non-compliance of the provisions of section 24(1) of the Banking Regulation Act - whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the rate of penal interest the assessee has to pay under the relevant banking law is interest only and not penalty. In other words, the question is as to whether the payment of penal interest under the banking laws is for the infraction of law – Held that such penal interest cannot be treated as penalty for infraction of law

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 16 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty - concealment of income – burden of proof - When the appellant had filed explanation in reply to the notice, the Assessing Officer as well as the appellate authorities are bound to consider the explanation in the light of clause (B) to Explanation 1 to the section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this case, the Tribunal had erroneously cast the burden on the department - Tribunal has to consider the entire matter afresh both in respect of facts and in respect of law with particular reference to Explanation 1(B) of section 271(1)(c) - We accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal impugned in this appeal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 15 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Traveling expenses and kuri canvassing commission - There is no case that the appellant had furnished evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in regard to the entire expenses - Tribunal was justified in sustaining the disallowance regarding the above exepnses

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, when the assessee had agreed that depreciation claim will not be allowed for the period of five months, i.e., for the assessment year 1982-83, it was open to the assessee to claim depreciation on the ground that the condition imposed was illegal? - Simply because the assessee did not challenge the validity of such an unreasonable and arbitrary order at an initial stage, it would not deprive the assessee of its right to claim depreciation, the right which has been given to him under the statute – Thus question is answered in affirmative and in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty u/s 271D – violation of provision of section 269SS – receiving the money in cash - By the impugned order the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), whereby penalty levied on the respondent/assessee under section 271D was deleted - Tribunal's order shows that the conclusion of the Tribunal that there was a reasonable cause in not strictly complying with the provisions of section 26955 of the Act is based on relevant factors. The view taken by the Tribunal is not either perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person, on the given facts, would have come to the same conclusion

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Mistake apparent on the record - a mistake apparent on the record within the meaning of section 154 of the Act must be an "obvious" and "patent" mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions – Therefore, a part of the relief granted to the respondent/assessee under section 80-I could not be withdrawn by taking recourse of section 154

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Rental income derived from the leasing out of the property - "Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the rental income derived from the leasing out of the property should be assessed under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' only and not under the head 'Income from house property?" - it is not necessary to express our opinion as it is the case of the assessee that the company has the necessary objects clause and the property was a commercial asset but it is for the assessee to establish the same. Since the Tribunal has not gone into the factual questions, we remit the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to reconsider the question afresh in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Appellant was prosecuted on filing of complaint under the provisions of section 276C (1) and section 277 of ITA and under sections 193, 196 and 420 of IPC - We refrain from expressing any opinion about the effect of those orders on the complaint pending before the Magistrate. That was not the issue before the High Court nor was it before the Magistrate when applications for discharge were filed by the appellant - assessee's appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Interpretation of the provisions of section 22 - Question that "Whether, the assessee will be entitled to the benefit for carry forward of loss to be set off in subsequent years even if the return of loss is filed beyond the time prescribed under section 139(3)", is a question of law - language of section 22 and section 139, sub-sections (3) and (4) of the Act do not prima facie appear to be pari materia and it cannot be said that the question raised by the Revenue is not an arguable one.

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether on account of doctrine of incorporation, section 145, having been incorporated in section 21 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, when the assessee maintains books of account on cash system and being assessed under the cash system does not the chargeable interest deserve to be computed on cash method

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Appellant challenging the validity of notices issued under sections 148 and 143(2) - High Court took the view that the appellant could have taken all the objections in its reply to the notices and that, at that stage, the writ petition was premature Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed - We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the time for payment fixed under section 67 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 is extendable - held that the assessees are not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme since the payments made by them were not in terms of the Scheme, we direct the Revenue authorities to refund or adjust the amounts already deposited by the assessees in purported compliance with the provisions of the Scheme to the concerned assessees in accordance with law

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Once the declarant makes payment of the amount so determined under section 90, the immunity under section 91 springs into effect - upon such declaration being made, tax arrears being determined, paid and certificate issued under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, there is no jurisdiction for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment by a notice under section 143 - High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition - judgment of the High Court is set aside and notices u/s 142(1) is quashed

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Valuation of the estate -whether the probable estate duty payable on the death of the life-tenant has to be taken into account and the value of the property will be diminished by that for charge of wealth-tax in the hands of the remainder man - issue should be settled by a larger Bench. Therefore, we direct that the papers of these appeals and connected matters be placed before the Chief justice of India for appropriate orders.

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  ‘New Industrial Units’ in North-East' - Earlier Unit closed and subsequently another Unit started at different location without sifting of machinery or work force. Mere attempt to get earlier Industrial licence endorsed for the new Unit at new location will not deprive the new unit of exemption.

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 2 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service Tax – Demand of service tax and penalty – On the basis of retrospective no penalty can be imposed

  ---

• 2002 (11) TMI 1 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Service Tax – (1) Demand for service tax (2) Quantification at Tribunal stage (3) Supportive documents

  ---

1 ....2223242526