Income Tax Judgements

Held by the Hon`ble Bench that as turnover charges levied by the SEBI are not one time license fees, it is to be paid every year on the basis of percentage of turnover, thus it is in the nature of expenditure covered by the provision of section 43B o

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, interest free loan could not be said to be "income". Therefore interest free loan given by a company to its director`s wife is not taxable as income under the provisions of the Income-tax Act 1961.

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, extra shift allowance has to be calculated for the number of days on which concern worked as a whole and not on the basis of each part of machinery which worked extra shift.

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, the fact were before the assessing officer at the time of passing the original assessment, and later on different view was taken by his successor on the same facts it clearly amounted to a change of opinion. This could

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, the assessee who is admittedly assessed to wealth-tax cannot be said to have no source of income. Therefore explanation given by assessee is not satisfactory and addition is justified in law.

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, the findings recorded by the Tribunal shows that the amount seized from the assessee, could not be faulted and block assessment was valid. Therefore proceedings initiated u/s 158BC was justified in law.

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 the Hon`ble Court that, the reference can be made to the valuation officer for the purpose of sections 55(A), 131, 133(6), 142(2) and not for the purpose of finding out the cost. Therefore no addition is allowed on account of valuation report

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, the two different method of valuation of closing stock are not permissible under law. If permitted it would lead to anomalous results.

Held by the Hon`ble Court that, it is an admitted fact that receipt against the work done prior to the formation received after the formation. Till received these expenses could not be claimed, therefore had to be carried forward and allowed in relev