Sponsored
    Follow Us:

All High Courts

Ram Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others – Allahabad High Court

August 11, 2000 3082 Views 0 comment Print

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the respondents had no Jurisdiction to seize the trucks and he has claimed damages. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. It has been repeatedly held by several Division Benches of this Court that trucks cannot be seized under the U. P. Trade-tax Act e.g., in the case of M/s. D. B. Timber Merchant, Ballia v. Commissioner of Sales-tax and another, 1992 UPTC 18, M/s. M. S. Freight Carriers and another v. Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, Ghaziabad, 1992 UPTC 273, M/s. Freight Carriers of India, Calcutta v. Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad and others, 1992 UPTC 604, etc.

Estate of Ambalal Sarabhai vs CIT (Gujarat High Court)

July 4, 2000 1305 Views 0 comment Print

The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has referred the following questions in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 for the consideration of the High Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, from the Tribunal’s order dt. 18th August 1981, and 20th August 1983, the later being question on the ground which was raised but through oversight not decided in the earlier order by the Tribunal.

CIT vs J. K. Investor (Bombay) Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

June 5, 2000 1314 Views 0 comment Print

The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : Whether notional interest on interest-free deposit received by the assessee against letting of property could be taken into account in cases falling under section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) In other words, whether notional interest would form part of actual rent received or receivable under section 23(1)(b) ?

Gujarat Gas Ltd vs. JCIT (2000) – Gujarat High Court- 245 ITR 84

April 18, 2000 2331 Views 0 comment Print

In our opinion, the view which we are taking is also fortified by the proviso to s. 119 of the Act which specifically provides that the Board cannot issue instructions to the IT authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner as well as not to interfere with the discretion of the CIT(A) in exercise of his appellate functions.

Penalty on Declaration of additional income to buy peace with Department?

July 20, 1999 5473 Views 0 comment Print

Shorn of all details, it emerges that the assessee first filed his returns for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 showing income ranging between Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 12,000. Later action under Section 132 was taken against him which led to reopening of the assessment. A notice under Section 148 was served on him

A married lady of reputed family is expected to own 500 gms of ornaments

July 8, 1999 1773 Views 0 comment Print

As per the CBDT Circular discussed in the case of Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO; 240 ITR 727 Karnatka 500gm, jewellery is expected in the possession of a married lady and that much of ornaments cannot be seized. If we go with the CBDT Circular dated 11.05.1994 and the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Pati Devi (supra), then each lady is expected to own 500gm. ornaments.

Sales amount by itself cannot represent income of assessee who has not disclosed sales

April 20, 1999 3900 Views 0 comment Print

It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realisation of excess over the cost incurred that only forms part of the profit

Prem Chand Bansal and Sons Vs. Income Tax Officer, (237 ITR 65) (Delhi)

October 9, 1998 1004 Views 0 comment Print

The case of the petitioner interalia was that there was a change in law as brought about by the decision of the Supreme Court. The Delhi High Court while holding that in considering a delay condonation application facts and circumstances of the each case are required to be considered, held that the facts of the case warranted condonation of delay of 25 days.

CIT vs Sampathammal Chordia (Madras High Court)

July 15, 1998 717 Views 0 comment Print

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 23 of the Income-tax act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only the actual rental receipts should be treated as annual letting value though the municipal authorities have fixed the annual value at a higher figure than the actual rent ? and

Income Tax: Firm and partners are separate legal entities

December 1, 1997 3594 Views 0 comment Print

The scheme of the IT Act, 1961, shows that the firm and its partners are treated as two separate legal entities so far as the provisions of tax law are concerned. While framing an order of assessment under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961, the firm and its partners are to be treated as two separate legal entities and payment of interest to a firm cannot be treated in the tax law as payment of interest to its partners.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728