Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Year: 2012 Page 6 of about 1,977 results (0.095 seconds)

Jun 04 2012 (HC)

Sri.Raj Kumar KhemkA. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-04-2012

..... of rs.7,47,000 under section 69 of the income tax act, 1961 in respect of unexplained investments in shares of nepc micon limited ?2. the assessee in both the appeals is an individual. in respect of ..... these appeals respectively :- 1. whether the appellate tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of rs.32,49,000 under section 69 of the income tax act, 1961 in respect of unexplained investments in shares of nepc micon limited ? 2. whether the appellate tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition ..... tribunal "b" bench, dated 16.6.2005 in ita nos. 326 & 327/mds/2000, under section 260 a of the income tax act, 1961 for the assessment year 1995-96.o r d e r(the order of the court was made by chitra venkataraman, j ..... of the assessing officer. therefore, the assessees carried the matter on further appeal to the tribunal, which once again confirmed the order of the commissioner of income tax (appeals). being unsuccessful before both the authorities, the present appeals have been preferred before us by the assessees.3. the grievance of the assessees herein ..... 69 of the act. the assessing authority pointed out that the assessees had not explained the nature and source of acquisition for the purchase of shares of nepc micon limited. thus, the assessment was held against the assessees. aggrieved by that, the assessees went on appeal before the commissioner of income tax (appeals), who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 04 2012 (HC)

Ms. Premier Synthetic Industries. Vs. the Income Tax Officer

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-04-2012

..... . in fact he observed that the assessee had purchased the loss and hence, could not be allowed under any of the provisions of the income tax act, 1961. the officer who passed the order had considered every aspect of the transactions in detail and commented the manner in which he dealt with ..... shares?"2. the assessee herein is a partnership firm. the return originally filed by the assessee was accepted under section 143(3) of the income tax act. subsequently, while scrutinising the assessment for the assessment year 1988-89, it was found that the assessee had claimed short term capital loss on ..... 1988-89. accordingly, the assessment for assessment year 1987-88 was sought to be reopened under section 147 of the income tax act. the assessee went on appeal before the commissioner of income tax (appeals), who found the modus operandi adopted to purchase the shares of the premier mills limited and subsequent sale ..... sold by the assessee to the sister concern by name m/s. belathur investments private limited.3. a perusal of the order of the income tax officer shows that initially the assessee had 54390 shares in m/s. premier mills limited in the name of capricorn general finance private limited, ..... were all colourable device, as such, the claim of capital loss was rejected. aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the income tax appellate tribunal, which remanded the matter back to the officer for a fresh consideration based on the records. as far as the assessment year 1988 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 2012 (HC)

Ms.Thanjavur Textiles Ltd. Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-19-2012

..... . going by the enunciation of law by the apex court that the deemed payment could not be treated as actual payment to qualify for deduction under section 43b of the income tax act, we do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the assessee herein that depositing the amount in a bank, even if it be in a separate ..... . mcdowell and co. ltd.), the apex court considered the question as to whether furnishing of bank guarantee would entitle the assessee to claim deduction under section 43 b of the income tax act. on the bank guarantee furnished by the assessee in respect of excise duty payable on wastage of liquor in transit, the apex court pointed out that the deduction claimed by ..... 15.12.1997 to the workers based on the agreement entered into on 13.12.1997. the assessing authority viewed that as per the provisions of section 43b of the income tax act, payment of bonus would be an admissible deduction if and only the amount was actually paid before the due date for filing the return. since the amount was paid long ..... iii v. alom extrusions limited), wherein the supreme court had considered the effect of the omission of the second proviso to section 43 b of the income tax act under finance act, 2003, as having retrospective effect from 1.4.1988, he submitted that going by the deposit made in the separate account, which cannot be in any manner used by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2012 (HC)

Ms.Builtec Engineers and Builders. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Inco ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-18-2012

..... to be accepted, then the purport of section 269 ss itself would be lost and there is no necessity at all to the provision like section 273 d of the income tax act. the parameters which would govern an outgoing and receipt cannot be one and the same, the assessee is duty bound to justify the receipt of cash from a close relative ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in confirming the levy of penalty of rs.7,35,475/- under section 271d of the income tax act?2. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant that the amount was ..... cause shown could not be accepted for exonerating the assessee from the rigour of penalty under section 271 d of the income tax act. in the absence of any satisfactory explanation offered for receiving cash in violation of section 269 ss of the income tax act, the tribunal confirmed the levy of penalty. aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee.7 ..... the proposal of penalty and accordingly, a sum of rs.7,36,475/- was levied as penalty under section 271 d of the income tax act.3. challenging the order of penalty, the assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner of income tax (appeals). confirming the findings of the assessing officer, the commissioner held that the explanation offered by the assessee was far from satisfactory .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2012 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Ms.Nepc India Limited

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-06-2012

..... officer at rs.5,537.87 lakhs. the assessee further admitted rs.1,601.36 lakhs being 30% of the book profit as deemed income under section 115ja of the income tax act. evidently, the assessee did not pay the tax on the basis of the book profit calculated under section 115ja.3. it is a matter of record that on 8.7.1999, the ..... take cognizance of revised return of income filed for the purpose of arriving at the tax liability under section 115ja and to arrive at the taxable income under the provisions of the income tax act, excluding section 115a provisions also. reiterating the view already taken by the assessing officer that the revised return ..... or before 31.3.1999. aggrieved by the assessment, the assessee went on appeal before the commissioner of income tax (appeals), which was dismissed by the commissioner that the order was not an appealable order under sections 246a to 248 of the income tax act.6. during the course of scrutiny of the assessment under section 143(2), the assessee requested the assessing officer to ..... of income was non est in the eye of law, the assessing officer rejected the revised returns filed by the assessee .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 2012 (HC)

A. Kowsalya Bai and ors Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-05-2012

..... the constitution praying to declare that s.206aa of the income tax act, 1961 is unconstitutional, etc.)these petitions have been filed seeking for a declaration that s.206 aa of the income tax act, 1961 is unconstitutional and for costs.it is stated, petitioners are small investors. for depositing their savings out of their meager income, they approached respondents 3 and 4, for earning better interest ..... /returns. they do not have any source of income other than their investment. it is also stated specifically, they ..... source on such small investments would cause undue hardship, introduced s.139 a1(i) of the act in the year 1995 which enables such persons not assessable to income tax to file a declaration to that effect in the prescribed format, by which income tax would be deducted at source. s.206aa which is introduced has come into effect from 1.4.2010 as per ..... by the legislature in its wisdom. what is not in dispute is, persons whose income is below the taxable limit need not have a pan and also they need not furnish income tax declaration/returns. of course, under the finance act, it is made clear that a person whose income is less than the taxable limit is not taxable. such of the small investors who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 2012 (HC)

Smt A. Kowsalya Bai and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-05-2012

Reported in : 2012(3)KCCR2471

..... the constitution praying to declare that s.206aa of the income tax act, 1961 is unconstitutional, etc.)these petitions have been filed seeking for a declaration that s.206 aa of the income tax act, 1961 is unconstitutional and for costs.it is stated, petitioners are small investors. for depositing their savings out of their meager income, they approached respondents 3 and 4, for earning better interest ..... /returns. they do not have any source of income other than their investment. it is also stated specifically, they ..... source on such small investments would cause undue hardship, introduced s.139 a1(i) of the act in the year 1995 which enables such persons not assessable to income tax to file a declaration to that effect in the prescribed format, by which income tax would be deducted at source. s.206aa which is introduced has come into effect from 1.4.2010 as per ..... by the legislature in its wisdom. what is not in dispute is, persons whose income is below the taxable limit need not have a pan and also they need not furnish income tax declaration/returns. of course, under the finance act, it is made clear that a person whose income is less than the taxable limit is not taxable. such of the small investors who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2012 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax, VijayawadA. Vs. Ms.O.R.Distilleriesltd., T ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-27-2012

..... the same assessee, namely, m/s.o.r.distilleries ltd., tirupathi. in r.c.no.254 of 1996, the income tax appellate tribunal (itat) referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (the act), for opinion of this court. 1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the itat is correct in holding that the article ..... .c.no.77 of 1997 pertaining to assessment years 1985-1986, 1986-1987 and 1989-1980. submissions4. the junior standing counsel for income tax would submit that section 32a(2)(iii) read with item 1 of eleventh schedule of the act does not enable the assessee to claim investment allowance as they are engaged in the manufacture and production of alcoholic spirits. according ..... or thing, viz., alcohol including rectified spirit and denatured spirit manufactured by the assessee company do not come under the ambit of eleventh schedule of the i.t.act, 1961? 2 ..... as to make statute workable). if any interpretation renders an act or any of its core provisions unworkable, such interpretation should be avoided unless the legislative intention is clear and unambiguous (saurabh chaudri v union of india8, commissioner of income tax v lakshmi machine works9 and k.p.mohammed salim v commissioner of income tax10). in tinsukhia electric supply company limited v state of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2012 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax, VijayawadA. Vs. Ms.O.R.Distilleries Ltd., ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-27-2012

..... the same assessee, namely, m/s.o.r.distilleries ltd., tirupathi. in r.c.no.254 of 1996, the income tax appellate tribunal (itat) referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (the act), for opinion of this court. 1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the itat is correct in holding that the article ..... .c.no.77 of 1997 pertaining to assessment years 1985-1986, 1986-1987 and 1989-1980. submissions4. the junior standing counsel for income tax would submit that section 32a(2)(iii) read with item 1 of eleventh schedule of the act does not enable the assessee to claim investment allowance as they are engaged in the manufacture and production of alcoholic spirits. according ..... or thing, viz., alcohol including rectified spirit and denatured spirit manufactured by the assessee company do not come under the ambit of eleventh schedule of the i.t.act, 1961? 2 ..... as to make statute workable). if any interpretation renders an act or any of its core provisions unworkable, such interpretation should be avoided unless the legislative intention is clear and unambiguous (saurabh chaudri v union of india8, commissioner of income tax v lakshmi machine works9 and k.p.mohammed salim v commissioner of income tax10).9. in tinsukhia electric supply company limited v state .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2012 (HC)

Ms.Arun Excello Foundations Private Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner o ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-27-2012

..... could be seen that the respondent had issued a notice, dated 25.3.2011, for the re-opening of the assessment, under section 147 of the income tax act, 1961. however, in the said notice, issued by the respondent, it has not been stated that the petitioner had failed to fully and truly ..... behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the assessment, in respect of the assessment year 2004-2005, under section 143(3) of the income tax act, 1961, had been completed, vide assessment order, dated 27.3.2006. in the said assessment order the deduction was disallowed on the ground that the ..... was operating only as a contractor and not as a builder, in the light of the explanation to section 80ib(10) of the income tax act, 1961, introduced by the finance act, 2009, with retrospective effect, from 1.4.2001, it would not be open to the respondent to re-open the assessment on ..... issue a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the impugned notice, dated 25.3.2011, issued under section 148 of the income tax act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as `the act') and the consequential proceedings, dated 28.9.2011, issued by the respondent, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, against the ..... truly all material facts necessary for the assessment year under consideration, the assumption of jurisdiction, by the respondent, under section 147 of the income tax act, 1961, after the expiry of four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year, is illegal and invalid. accordingly, the proceedings, under .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //