Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (1991)36ITD428(All.)
..... held, (i) that penalty was imposed on account of the commission of a wrongful act and it was the law operating on which the wrongful act was committed which determined the penalty and that, therefore, clause (iii) substituted in section 271 (1) by the finance act, 1968, governed this case.the law applicable on the date of filing of the return has ..... to this proposition and we hold that this amendment has no retrospective effect. it is very clearly given that explanation 5, which was added by taxation laws (amendment) act, 1984 was effective from 1-10-1984. definitely, we hold that this explanation adds a basic burden on the assessee insofar as the assessee will be deemed to ..... and the earlier judgments of the tribunal we have to address ourselves to the basic question whether explanation 5 of section 18(1)(c) of the wealth-tax act is retrospective, whether it is procedural or it adds to the basic burden of the assessee and, therefore, substantive to that extent and lastly, whether the order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1991)95CTR(All)26; [1991]189ITR124(All)
..... of that property is deductible under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 24 of the act. the assessment years concerned herein are 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. by the finance act, 1968, clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 24 of the act was deleted and certain words were inserted in clause (iv). for the sake of convenience, we may ..... read both clause (iii) as well as clause (iv) as amended by the said finance act. clause (iii) reads ;'(iii) where the property is subject ..... b. p. jeevan reddy, c.j. 1. following two questions have been referred by the tribunal under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, for our opinion :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally justified in allowing the claim of the assesses in respect .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1992]194ITR442(All)
..... effected by the assessee on the date he filed a return of his total income, i.e., on april 24, 1968. accordingly, the supreme court held it was the substituted clause (iii) brought in by the finance act, 1968, with effect from april 1, 1968, which governs the case. this decision of the supreme court was, however, one dealing with the effect of the amendment ..... in the charging section which affects substantive rights. clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 is a charging section while section 274(2) and section 275 of the act deal with .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)140CTR(All)394; [1997]223ITR705(All); [1997]93TAXMAN36(All)
..... , 1969, for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63, disclosing the same income which was shown in the original returns. the finance act, 1968, amended section 271(1)(c) with effect from april 1, 1968. it, inter alia, changed the measure of the penalty. the penalty after amendment was dependent upon the amount of income concealed and ..... the previous years relating to the aforesaid four assessment years. he, therefore, initiated proceedings under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the act, 1961, for the assessment years 1966-67, 1968-69 and 1969-70. pursuant to the notices issued under section 148, the assessee filed returns for the said three years showing income 'nil ..... law in confirming the enhancement of penalties made by the appellate assistant commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961?'2. the reference relates to the assessment years 1966-67, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1973-74. for these years, the assessee returned incomes in the original returns as follows : rs. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(All)598; [2006]280ITR465(All)
..... from the object and reaches to the eyes of the person. taking into account the pious aim and object of the introduction of section 80u in the act by the finance act, 1968, we are of the opinion that total blindness under section 80u means an individual who is unable to perceive the light the total blindness does not mean ..... have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. we find that section 80u was introduced in the statute book for the first time by the finance act, 1968. the original section 80u reads as follows.' 80-u - deduction in the case of blind persons- in computing the total income of an individual, being a resident ..... from 1-4-1971 the benefit has also been extended to such assessee who suffers from permanent physical disability ( other than blindness).8. the finance minister in his budget speech for the year 1968- 69 has stated as follows:' as a measure of relief to totally blind individuals proposed to provide for deduction of rs. two thousand .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005]147TAXMAN423(All)
..... from the object and reaches to the eyes of the person. taking into account the pious aim and object of the introduction of section 80u in the act by the finance act, 1968, we are of the opinion that total blindness under section 80u means an individual who is unable to perceive the light. the total blindness does not mean ..... have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. we find that section 80u was introduced in the statute book for the first time by the finance act, 1968. the original section 80u reads as follows :'80u. deduction in the case of blind persons.in computing the total income of an individual being a resident, who ..... effect from 1-4-1971 the benefit has also been extended to such assessee who suffers from permanent physical disability (other than blindness).the finance minister in his budget speech for the year 1968-69 has stated as follows :'as a measure of relief to totally blind individuals i proposed to provide for deduction of rs. two .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2008]296ITR616(All)
..... by the assessee it would not fall under the aforesaid clause. similar provision existed under section 40a(5)(a)(ii) and section 40(a)(v) inserted by the finance (no. 2) act, 1971, and finance act, 1968, with effect from april 1, 1969, respectively. the apex court in the case of cit v. mafatlal gangabhai and co. p. ltd. : [1996]219itr644(sc) ..... amount in question in the hands of the assessee by treating the same as a perquisite in terms of provisions of section 17(2)(iii)(a) of the income-tax act, 1961, also confirmed during first appeal.5. the tribunal, however, on an appeal by the assessee took the view that the receipt towards the reimbursement of medical ..... of medical expenses to an employee being the director of the company, is not 'perquisite' within the meaning of section 17(2)(iii)(a) of the income-tax act, 1961?2. the present reference relates to the assessment year 1990-91.briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:the assessee an individual .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (1988)25ITD555(All.)
..... not included his share in the profits of the other. the ito instituted penalty. proceedings under clause (iii) of section 271(1) of the it act, 1961 (as it stood amended by the finance act, 1968) and, having regard to the minimum penalty leviable, referred the case to the iac.the iac levied penalty of a sum equal to the income concealed ..... . the assessee appealed to the tribunal and contended that the section as it stood in the assessment year 1964-65 and not as it stood amended in 1968 applied ..... tribunal was right in applying the provisions of clause (iii) of section 271(1) as amended in 1968.on these facts, the hon'ble supreme court held that a penalty is imposed on account of the commission of a wrongful act. is committed which determines the penalty. where penalty is imposed for concealment of particulars of income, it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1991]188ITR370(All)
..... ]91itr289(ker) merely says that a hotel being mainly a trading concern cannot be treated as an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(6)(d) of the finance act, 1968. the decision of the madras high court in cit v. standard motor products of india ltd. : [1962]46itr814(mad) related to an assessee who was engaged in ..... section 80j. learned counsel for the assessee also drew our attention to the definition of 'manufacture' contained in clause (iii) of the explanation appended to section 10a of the act. the same definition occurs in the explanation appended both to sections 10a and 10b. it reads thus : 'manufacture' includes any :--(a) process, or (b) assembling, or ..... formation of tractor which has propulsion amounts to manufacture and the assessee was thus an industrial undertaking entitled to relief under sections 80-i and 80j of the income-tax act, 1961 ?'2. in i. t. r. no. 614 of 1977, a further question is referred. it readsthus :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1983)34CTR(All)78; [1983]143ITR793(All); [1983]12TAXMAN351(All)
..... the sale of import licences, that the assessee is an industrial company within the meaning of clause (d) of sub-section (7) of section 2 of the finance act, 1966. in our opinion, the income of the assessee has been wrongly taxed at 65% and this was an error which could be rectified under section 154 of the ..... . v. cit : [1978]113itr84(sc) , the supreme court had occasion to consider the expression occurring in section 80e (as it stood prior to its amendment by the finance (no. 2) act, 1967). it was held that the legislature had deliberately used the expression ' attributable to', having a wider import than the expression ' derived from ', thereby intending to cover ..... when he completed the original assessment. the assessee went up in appeal. it also made an application before the ito under section 154 of the i.t. act on december 3, 1968, claiming that it was an industrial company in which the public are not substantially interested and it was liable to be taxed at fifty-five per cent. .....
Tag this Judgment!