Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)203CTR(All)498; [2006]283ITR181(All)
..... tribunal, new delhi has referred the following question 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 facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was legally correct in granting investment allowance to ..... of development rebate on x-ray machine is a debatable point and can not be subject matter of rectification proceedings under section 154 of the income tax act. in commissioner of income tax v. trinity hospital it has been held that for rendering an efficient medical services to the patients investment allowance is allowable on various machines ..... activities covered by the expression 'article' or 'thing.'7. the kerala high court in the case of mar gregorious memorial muthoot medical centre v. commissioner of income tax, : [2003]261itr443(ker) has held that although a hospital as such could not manufacture or produce any article or thing by separate industrial undertakings, since the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005]277ITR270(All)
..... a commission agent and not as a trader. the appellant supplied the list of parties for whom it had acted as a commission agent. summons under section 131 of the income-tax act, hereafter referred to as 'the act', was issued. five persons appeared and the remaining five for reasons best known did not appear. on the basis of ..... the statement recorded in respect of the persons who had appeared before the income-tax officer had accepted the plea of the appellant acting as commission agent in respect ..... by any material on record. in this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the income-tax officer was perfectly justified in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant and holding that it acted as a trader in respect of the transactions which have not been proved by it in the capacity of a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)200CTR(All)196; [2005]277ITR285(All)
..... tribunal has referred the following question 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 was justified in holding that the penalty for concealment of income was leviable on the assessee ?'2. the reference relates to the assessment year ..... be discharged in such a case and penalty cannot be imposed. it may be mentioned here that the aforesaid case related to the imposition of penalty for concealment of income under the indian income-tax act, 1922 in which the explanation, as inserted in the year 1964, was not there. thus, no benefit or advantage can be obtained from the aforesaid decision.14. in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005]277ITR355(All)
..... tribunal, new delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), for opinion to this court :'in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the income-tax appellate tribunal was competent to recall its earlier order on the basis of mistakes pointed out and ..... the birthdays and her wedding when she had received the gifts from her relations. if she desired that she should not be made liable under the income-tax act for the aforesaid jewellery it was obligatory on her part that the full particulars of the relations and the gifts made by them should have been disclosed to ..... to explain the source of the aforesaid jewellery. we have not been able to appreciate the observation of the appellate assistant commissioner that the income-tax officer could not make an addition by acting on probabilities and merely on the basis of suspicion howsoever grave may be as it cannot take the place of proof. it was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2006)201CTR(All)44; [2006]280ITR547(All)
..... tribunal, delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for opinion of this court:whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the tribunal was correct in holding that the gifts received by ..... to prove not only the identity of the person concerned, but also the capacity and genuineness of the transaction with reference to any addition made under section 68 of the income-tax act. it held that the assessee had failed to prove the credit worthiness of the donors and that the case law relied upon by learned counsel was distinguishable on the facts ..... the applicant were not genuine and further that they fall under section 68 of the income-tax act and were thus correctly added to the income of the assessee ?2. the present reference relates to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.3. the brief facts of the case as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1984]146ITR249(All)
..... learned judge observed (p. 534):'the question whether after the constitution of a firm undergoes a change of the nature described in section 187 of the income-tax act, 1961, which corresponds to section 26 of the 1922 act, the newly constituted firm is the same firm or not, is concerned, the supreme court in the caseof commissioner of ..... are analogous to sections 187, 188 and 189 of the i.t. act, 1961, that these provisions go to show that the technical view of the nature of a partnership under the english law or the indian law, cannot be taken in applying the law of income-tax. the true question is one of the identity of the unit assessed. ..... in the case of reconstitution of a firm as envisaged by section 187 of the 1961 act it becomes necessary for him to discuss, whether, in such circumstances, the income of the erstwhile and the newly constituted firm can be clubbed together in one assessment. and relying on cit v. bharat engineering and construction co. : [1968]67itr273(kar) , the hon' .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1992)104CTR(All)282; [1993]200ITR461(All)
..... 1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), the income-tax appellate tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :' whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) directing the income-tax officer to frame two ..... was inapplicable. thus, it was not a case of 'change in the constitution' of the firm within the meaning of section 187 of the act. the decision of the income-tax appellate tribunal that the new firm had succeeded the old firm and that by virtue of the provisions of section 188 separate assessments for the pre ..... not have been disturbed, whereas if it was a case of succession, two assessments were called for as held by the income-tax appellate tribunal.5. sub-section (1) of section 187 of the act lays down that where, at the time of making an assessment it is found that a change has occurred in the 'constitution .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1971]79ITR561(All)
t.p. mukerjee, j.1. this is a case stated by the appellate tribunal under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the act, on the following question :'whether the amount of rs. 39,302 which was found due on account of interest charged from jagannath, working partner, and which was written off because ..... assessee wrote off the entire sum of rs. 94,544 and in the assessment for the assessment year under reference, it claimed the amount as a revenue loss.4. the income-tax officer disallowed the claim holding that it was a loss of capital and not of revenue and his decision was upheld by the appellate assistant commissioner as well as by ..... succeeding firm, cannot be held to be a trading loss. this view finds support from the decision of the bombay high court in amarchand madhavji and co. v. commissioner of income-tax, (1) [1935] 3 i.t.r. 462 (bom.). the facts in that case were very similar. in that case, there was a firm constituted of six partners. four of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1973]90ITR426(All)
..... that the proceedings in respect of the assessment in question for the assesssment year 1957-58 could not be commenced under section 154 of the income-tax act, 1961. it came tq the conclusion that the order passed by the income-tax officer was, in the circumstances, null and void and accordingly allowed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. it also held ..... holding that the order under section 154 of the income-tax act, 1961, was null and void for the assessment year 1957-58 '2. the assessment against ram dayal varma, assessee, was made under the provisions of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and was completed on 23rd march, 1962. the income-tax officer, alter the enforcement of the income-tax act of 1961, issued a notice to the assessee under section 154 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)196CTR(All)45; 2005(2)ESC1398; [2005]279ITR536(All)
..... tribunal, new delhi has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the income tax act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) for opinion to this court:-whether, the tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that for the purpose of availing deduction under section 80hh ..... ) is wholly misplaced one, as the issue involved therein was whether the firm was an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 5(1)(xxxii) of the wealth tax-act similarly, commissioner of income tax v. k.g. vediyurappa & co. : [1985]152itr152(kar) has no application in as much as the issue involved therein was that the casual workers are ..... indian handicrafts. its claim for deduction under sections 80hh and 80i of the act was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that the it firm was not a small scale industrial undertaking and it was not a manufacturer. in appeal, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) upheld the claim for deduction under the aforesaid two sections but .....
Tag this Judgment!