Income Tax Judgements

Held by hon"ble court that the company had incurred expenditure for the benefit of employees" and it could be said that such expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.Thus assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s 3

Held by hon"ble court that as the assesse had filed a revised return and paid the tax due within the time allowed u/s 148 hence,it cannot be held that assessee had made any delay in payment of tax. As such no interest u/s 234B can be levied.

By this reference application made under section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion : For asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, t

Held that when 194-I was introduced for TDS on rent payments, it was not envisaged that it will cover payments to hotels also. Further, assessee had itself sought clarification regarding TDS on hotel rent from the Deptt. which proves bona fide of the

Held that since the subsidiary co. did not have the authority to negotiate or enter into contracts on behalf of the foreign principal, it could not be held to be Permanent Establishment of the foreign co. in India and since, assessee did not have any

Held that no amount can be disallowed on account of estimated personal use of vehicles and telephone by directors and their family members in case of a company. Hence, disallowance of Rs. 1 lacs each from vehicle and telephone expenses was not justif

Held that failure to consider vital facts brought on record and ommission to consider decisions of various courts will constitute a a mistake apparent from record. Hence, Tribunal can rectify the mistakes u/s 254(2).

Held that it is not mandatory under provisions of section 35(1)(iv) that plant and machinery purchased must be put to use. It is enough that the expenditure is incurred on purchase of plant and machinery to be used in research work. Hence, A.O. is no

Held by hon"ble court that under mercantile system of accounting assessee is entitled to deduction of loss/ expenditure in the year in which such entry is made in books of account. Hence, A.O. is not justified in disallowing deduction for amount paya

Held by hon"ble court that it is clear from reading section 273A(3) that commissioner can once grant relief with regard to any number of assessment years. But once relief is granted under this section, the commissioner cannot grant any relief for any