Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

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 Ho"ble Court that the application for extension of time submitted by the assessee and the reply to the show cause notice was not considered by the AO while levying the penalty for not furnishing the wealth-tax return with in due date as evide

Held by the Hon'ble court that exemption u/s 5(1)(iv) has been provided to one house or part of the house belonging to the assessee.Cinema building and market cannot be held as a house.

Held by the Hon"ble court that two contiguous buildings in the same compound constituted a house belonging to the assessee exclusively used by him for residential purposes hence the assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of both the buildings.

Held that, let out portion not exempted, only part used for the business is exepmted.