|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 515 of 515 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... (c), that expenditure incurred on hire charges for engaging cars plied for hire stood disallowed. In the present case, the assessee has incurred expenses on hiring taxis (yellow taxis). Therefore, section 37(3B) has no application to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, we do not find any error of law in the decision of the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court, Firm, Penalty, Concealment of Income ... ... ... ... ..... r the Department detected the amount. This was challenged ultimately before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that no case for concealment has been made out by the Department. Firstly, the Tribunal found that it was not clear from the order passed by the Assessing Officer as to whether the amount received by the assessee in lieu of his rights for surrendering the films for distribution in the firm has to be taxed as business profits or under the head Capital gains . Secondly, the Tribunal found that the assessee, under the above circumstances, was under a bona fide belief that the amount was not taxable when he filed the original returns and that the revised returns were filed by the assessee when he was persuaded by the Assessing Officer. Hence, on the facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that no case for concealment has been made out. In the circumstances, no case for interference is made out. No substantial question of law arises. This appeal is dismissed accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Data Processing, Plant And Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... f of the assessee that the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case in view of the fact that in that matter the assessee carried on the business as business consultants. In the light of the above judgment in the case of CIT v. R. Shroff Consultants P. Ltd. 1999 238 ITR 1018 (Bom), the Tribunal will have to consider whether the assessee-company which was in the business of data processing could be said to have been engaged in the manufacture of articles or things with the help of the computer. We do not wish to make any observation on the facts either way as we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal should be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the matter in the light of the judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. R. Shroff Consultants P. Ltd. 1999 238 ITR 1018. All contentions of both the sides are, expressly kept open. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent amendment in the law or any pronouncement of law made subsequent to the filing of the return cannot be considered for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under the provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. We have carefully gone through the judgment cited by the learned advocates and after hearing them we are of the view that in this appeal no substantial question of law has arisen. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is clear and it is to the effect that the law which was in force at the time of filing of the return is to be considered for the purpose of initiating proceedings under the provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. As the return was filed as per the legal position prevailing at the relevant time and as the assessee had revealed the relevant facts by way of a note, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is just and legal. In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 11 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the finding given by the assessing authority about the concealment of income by the petitioners has been set aside by the Tribunal. The law is well settled now that when the grounds for addition of income are not accepted by the Tribunal and the order of the assessing authority, on the basis of which the complaint was filed, is not accepted, then the prosecution will be an abuse of the process of the court and it should not be allowed to continue. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of Uttam Chand v. ITO 1982 133 ITR 909 (SC) P. Jayappan v. S. K. Perumal, First ITO 1984 149 ITR 696 (SC) and G. L. Didwania v. ITO 1997 224 ITR 687 (SC). Thus, in view of the order of the Tribunal, setting aside the order of the assessing authority in this case, the prosecution of the petitioners under the aforesaid two sections is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners is hereby quashed. This application is accordingly allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut photostat copies of the documents without removing the seals and that the seals which were placed on the bunch of the documents and signed have not been disturbed. Looking to the nature of the documents and the purpose of the investigation, it is obvious that during the period for which the documents and books of account remained with the authorised officer, he would have to go through them and prepare the appraisal report. It is for this purpose that the documents and books of account are remained by him before they are handed over to the Assessing Officer. Looking to the aforesaid purpose of retaining the books of account and documents, the sealing procedure is evolved by the respondents in such a manner that although the documents can be xeroxed, no addition and/or deletion from the bunch is possible. ORDER Since there is no substance in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 9 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lication are for the same period for which the proceedings have become final as a result of proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 and this court has declined to invite reference on the very same question for the very same period, we are of the opinion that the assessment having become final for the very same assessment period by the Tribunal and ultimate rejection of the application by this court, it cannot be reopened in these proceedings. Even otherwise the question only appears to be adoption of one or the other method of computing net taxable profit on estimate. While the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal have adopted the higher rate of profit by excluding the consideration of depreciation to be adjusted and interest payable, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has adopted lower rate of profit by including the adjustments on these counts. This does not give rise to any question of law. In the circumstances, this application is rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Audit of accounts - petitioners were directed to get their accounts audited and furnish the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by the chartered accountant - The petitioners failed to perform their duty and obligation to produce the account books and relevant information which were complex in nature before the income-tax authorities for the assessment of income-tax leaving no option to the Assessing Officer but to exercise his powers under section 142(2A). - Such an action was genuinely required in the interests of the Revenue. We are definitely of the view that the special audit, having regard to the complexity of accounts, is relevant for the assessment proceeding. – Petition of assessee is dismissed
-
2000 (3) TMI 7 - SC ORDER
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in treating the bottles used in liquor business as plant - Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the above question of law to the High Court
-
2000 (3) TMI 6 - SC ORDER
Co-operative Society - Special Deduction - question basically is in regard to the retrospective operation of section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, as amended by the Second Amendment Act of 1998, with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1968. The order under challenge, though subsequent to the date of the amendment, does not take note thereof - respondents challenges the validity of the said amendment - Matter sent back to High Court to decide afresh.
-
2000 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee is a plantation company engaged in the business of growing rubber and tea. In 1975, it entered into three agreements with three purchasers for sale of old rubber trees - Held that amounts received by the assessee/appellant in respect of an abortive sale transaction of rubber trees are capital receipts
-
2000 (3) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Club - provides recreational and refreshment facilities exclusively to its members and their guests - Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the annual letting value of the club building is not assessable to income-tax under the head 'Income from property' - business of the appellant is governed by the principle of mutuality even the deemed income from its property is governed by the said principle of mutuality. Therefore, these appeals have to succeed
-
2000 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee is a company and maintains accounts on mercantile basis. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee did not claim any depreciation. The ITO, however, allowed depreciation - Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the ITO could not grant depreciation allowance to the assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the same was not claimed by the assessee
-
2000 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
It is not a case where under some mistaken belief the assessee did not disclose the cash compensatory support received by it - Additional tax was levied as the assessee did not in his return show the income by way of cash compensatory support - When additional tax has the imprint of penalty, the Revenue cannot be heard to say that the levy of additional tax is automatic u/s 143(1A) - Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made u/s 143(1)(a)
-
2000 (3) TMI 1 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Service Tax – Plea to the Appellate Tribunal – Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... mentions any order passed by the Central Excise Officer . It is for the Central Board of Excise and Customs to specify the Central Excise Officer up to which rank would qualify under the said expression used in the Statute. 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings and in view of our applying the ratio of the decision cited supra we set aside the impugned order in appeal and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration of the appeal before him on merits in view of our findings that he has jurisdiction to do so. 9. Before considering the appeal before him on merits, the Commissioner (Appeals) is also required to consider their stay application connected with this appeal in view of the aforesaid decision in the present appellants 39 appeal No. ST/4/99/ against order in original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, noted above. ST/COD/602/99 and the connected stay application are found to be in fructuous and are therefore dismissed.
....
|
