Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1998)148CTR(All)341; [1999]235ITR451(All)
..... findings of fact anddoes not give rise to any question of law.3. the tribunal has in categorical terms held that the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), are not satisfied in this case. it appears that the assessee had claimed a deduction of rs. 63,993 in the computation of its total ..... case, the tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of rs. 38,100 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the income-tax appellate tribunal is perverse inasmuch as the relevant facts have not been properly evaluated and wrong conclusion is drawn ?'2. we have .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)203CTR(All)267; [2005]274ITR553(All)
..... fact that the assessee is maintaining his accounts on cash basis and has not received the interest is not relevant. the analogy of the income-tax act cannot be extended to the wealth-tax act, because the wealth-tax act by means of section 2(m) read with section 2(e) defines what constitutes 'net wealth' and an 'asset'. the indicia of ..... by the apex court in the case of a. krishnaswami mudaliar : [1964]53itr122(sc) stands modified as a result of insertion of rule 9b as the wealth-tax act and the income-tax act are cognate enactments.6. we have heard sri shambhu chopra, learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue and sri p. k. jain, learned counsel appearing for ..... encourage a particular industry or to safeguard interest of a class of persons. merely because an item of expenditure is 100 per cent, allowable under the income-tax act while computing the income it does not automatically mean that such item ceases to be an asset or has no value. it will still remain an asset and will have .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1963All172; [1963]48ITR705(All)
..... making an order covered by section 31(3), would be a rinding without jurisdiction. further, when applying the second proviso to section 34(3) of the income-tax act, the income-tax officer is only competent to take into account orders which are in conformity with the provisions of section 31(3) and findings which are accessary for passing ..... his costs assessed at rs. 200/- from the assesses.jagdish sahai, j.21. this is a reference under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act (hereinafter referred to as the act). the case came up for hearing before a bench consisting of desai, c. j. and brijlal gupta, j. who referred it to a full ..... persons covered by the expression 'any person' would be persons belonging to those sections who, under the income-tax act, are intimately connected with and interested in the proceedings taken against the assessee and whose assessments under the act are affected by the orders passed in those proceedings.'such an arbitrary, restricted meaning was not given to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1981)20CTR(All)160; [1981]128ITR564(All)
..... finding recorded by the tribunal that in this case the onus that lay on the assessee in view of the explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961, had been discharged ?' 3. the observation made by the tribunal indicates that in its opinion in cases where the explanation added to section 271(1)(c) is ..... is made no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed. section 143 of the income-tax act, 1961, read with section 145 of the act, clearly contemplates that in a case where the assessee files a return of its income and the income-tax officer is either not satisfied that the method employed by the assessee in maintaining its account books ..... that lav on the assessee in view of the explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961, had been discharged ?' assessment year 1966-67:'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of rs. 13,000 imposed upon the assessee under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1970All330; [1970]25STC383(All)
..... to draw an analogy from the corresponding provisions under the income tax act. the income tax act of 1961 also contains several provisions for the imposition of interest when the assessee defaults in making payment of advance or regular tax. under section 156 of the income tax act, 'when any tax, interest, penalty fine or any other sum is payable ..... in consequence of any order passed under the act, the income tax officer has ..... has become classical and has been cited with approval by the supreme court in cases which are a legion. to quote some of such cases under the income tax act, reference may be made to the following where this passage of lord asquith of bishopstone has been reproduced and approved:(a) m.k. venkatachalam v. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005]144TAXMAN651(All)
..... , order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing separate notices issued to them on 15-3-2001 by the income tax officer, ward bijnor, respondent no. 1, under section 148 of the income tax act, 1961 ('the act'), relating to the assessment year 1996-97.since all the four petitions raise a common question of law, they are ..... (p) ltd. (supra).18. in the case of gkn driveshafts (india) ltd. (supra) the apex held as follows:'when a notice under section 148 of the income tax act, 1961, is issued the proper course of action for the notice is to file the return and, if' desires, to seek reasons for issuing the notices. the assessing officer ..... the writ petition under article 226 is maintainable.27. it is well-settled that the proceedings under the wealth tax act and the income tax act are separate and merely because the assessing officer under the wealth tax act and the income tax act is one and the same person, would not mean that the scrutiny of materials /informations/ wealth under the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005]144TAXMAN848(All)
..... appeals) order directing accepting of the assessee's request made under section 154 of the income tax act, 1961 that it was an industrial undertaking and the mistake of its being treated as non-industrial one, was apparent on the face of the record in respect of assessment ..... tribunal, delhi has referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for opinion to this court :-'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal has been correct in law in upholding the commissioner ( ..... there was a mistake apparent on the record inasmuch as the firm had not been charged at the maximum rate of tax under section 17(1) of the indian income tax act, 1922. the income tax officer rectified the assessment by applying the provisions of that section. on these facts, the apex court has held that the question whether sections 17(1) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2003]133TAXMAN482(All)
..... to the writ petition), by which rule 3 of the income tax rules, 1962 was substituted by the income tax (22nd amendment) rules, 2001 issued by the central board of direct taxes. the petitioner is also challenging the validity of section 17(2)(vi) of the income tax act, 1961 as inserted by the finance act, 2001 on the ground that it has delegated essential legislative ..... an association of officers of airport authority of india.3. before dealing with the controversy in this case, we may refer to section 17(2)(vi) of the income tax act which states that for the purposes of sections 15 and 16 and of that section 'perquisite' includes 'value of any other fringe benefit or amenity as may be ..... the petitioner. hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the provisions of section 17(2)(vi) of the income tax act as inserted by the finance act, 2001 as well as rule 3 of the income tax rules framed in pursuance of section 17(2)(vi) by the board are legal and valid. a similar view has been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1967]63ITR97(All)
..... given by a learned single judge of this court in writ petition no. 2624 of 1957, dated 3rd october, 1961, in which the view taken was that no penalty under section 46(1) of the income-tax act could be imposed, having regard to the principles of natural justice, without first issuing notice to such person. that ..... assistant commissioner gave full hearing on merits, we are unable to hold that the imposition of penalty under section 46(1) of the income-tax act read with section 21 of the excess profits tax act was invalid.in these circumstances, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative. the assessee will pay the costs of the ..... appellate assistant commissioner who dismissed the appeals and confirmed the imposition of the penalties. a further appeal before the income-tax appellate tribunal under section 66(1) of the income-tax act read with section 21 of the excess profits tax act to refer a question of law to this court and it is in pursuance of that application that question .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2008]302ITR221(All)
..... tribunal, new delhi, has referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 income tax act for opinion to this court:r.a. no. 980/delhi/96 (a.y. 1984-85)1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned itat was ..... legally correct in deleting the addition of rs. 2,99,287 towards cessation of liability which is clearly chargeable to tax under section 41(1) of income tax act ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned itat was legally correct in deleting the addition of rs. 1,77,953 made ..... was legally correct in deleting the addition of rs. 1,39,658 made by the assessing officer under section 40a(5) of income tax act and holding that disallowance should be: worked out in view of rule 3(c)(ri) of income-tax rules ?whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned itat was legally correct in deleting the addition of .....
Tag this Judgment!