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.
It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor.
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
Civil Appeals Nos 6082, 6083, 6084, 6085 and 6086 of 1990 and 5516 of 1997 (Appeals from the judgment and order dated March 29, 1983 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos 1065-69 of 1977 and 1070-74 of 1977),
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.
SEN, J. The point that falls for determination in this case is whether a sum of Rs. 79 lakhs representing Debenture Redemption Reserve was includible in computing the capital of the assessee Company for the purpose of Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The High Court took the view that the amount set apart to redeem the debentures has to be treated as ‘provision’ and not as ‘reserve’.
Since the entire liability to pay the discount had been incurred in the accounting year in question, the assessee was entitled to deduct the entire amount of Rs 3,00,000 in that accounting year This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year
Dismissing the appeal filled by the Revenue and the cross appeal of the assessee, this Court HELD : 1.1. An educational society or Trust or other similar body running an educational institution solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profits could be regarded as `other educational institution’ coming within Section 10(22) of the Act. [954-F]
The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the amount collected as per the direction given in the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, is also entitled to be deducted as revenue expenditure, while computing the total income of the assessee. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee
In this case the assessee was denied exemption on the investments made with Delhi Development Authority. However, relief was granted by the Hon’ble High Court. It was held that section 54 of the Act of 1961 only says that within two years, the assessee should have constructed the house
