Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1966 1966 (8) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 63 Records

• 1966 (8) TMI 23 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee has filed an application for being permitted to withdraw the reference saying that he is no longer interested in 'prosecuting the reference' - High Court is not bound to answer the reference

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the 40 % of the profits of the business of A payable to the two Thavazhies is assessable as `unearned income` in the hands of the trustees u/s 41 of the IT Act, 1922, and subject to the levy of a special surcharge - this case will not fall u/s 41 - here a trust has been created in relation to the business which has been held by the Supreme Court to be property and the trustee does not carry on the business on behalf of anybody else

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - refusal of registration

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ection (3) of section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. We do not think that clause 4 in annexure A and clause 11 in annexure B in the two partnership deeds concerned have provided for anything other than what has been done in clause 8 of the partnership deed which we then construed. If there has been no imposition of personal liability on the minors, section 30(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, is not infringed. The refusal of registration cannot be sustained. We answer question No. 1 referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. In the light of the answer to question No. 1, question No. 2 does not arise for consideration. This income-tax referred case is ordered as above. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal as required by sub-section (5) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Explanation made out by assessee was not accepted by ITO would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the assessee had furnished wrongful particulars of his income - penalty u/s 28(1)(c) of the Act was not justified

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee received Rs. 75,000 from lease of forest for ``clear felling`` of trees - should be considered as a revenue income and not as a capital income

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessee-company was at all entitled to set off the loss of Rs. 11,875 suffered by it on a joint venture against its other income - held, no - because assessee-company was not the same as the assessee in the joint venture which was either an unregistered firm or an association of persons

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 17 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee was the holder of an impartible estate, and, by an indenture, granted to his wife two premises for life by way of supplementary khorposh (maintenance) grant - transfer cannot be taken as a transfer by the husband of his assets to his wife - provision u/s 16(3)(a)(iii) cannot, therefore, be attracted

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 16 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessment to wealth-tax for the asst. yr. 1960-61 had been rightly made on the assessee in the status of an individual - as there was no other coparcener with the assessee on the valuation date, the assessment to wealth-tax was rightly made on the basis that the assessee was an individual

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  ITO disallowed the amount of sales tax liability claimed by the assessee on the ground that same was under dispute and assessee did not pay the amount - amount which was claimed by the assessee as a deduction on account of sales tax was not deductible as a business expense

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee transferred a certain sum to another concern in joint loan a/c in his name and in the name of other two persons who were standing surities for the assessee - inclusion of the entire interest credited in the account books of CS Pvt. Ltd. in the joint loan account of M/s. BRP, IAP & HRP in the assessments of the assessee is legal

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Amount received by the assessee under the sub-leases - they are not capital recipt - liable to tax

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 12 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Aggregation of the income - whether two sets of income derived during the same accounting year by firms which purported to be distinct firms, could be added to one another for the purpose of assessment - Held, no

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - assessment was reopened u/s. 34 - undisclosed income - reassessment on the assessee firm is not valid in law

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether for proceedings in pursuance of certificate specifying sum higher than legally due is valid - Held, no

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 9 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Loss suffered by the corporation on the sale of securities - not a capital loss

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hough in trying to advance loans to the industries it would certainly earn interest. This is an important activity that the State has undertaken to help industrial growth in the State and, therefore, we cannot impute such motives to it as animate a private financier or a money-lender. Functions envisaged under section 25 of the Act are nothing but the activities of a Welfare State and, therefore, the corporation could not put off the question of disbursing sanctioned loans by waiting for the investment in securities to mature. In this context we are satisfied that the sale of the securities was closely linked up with the business of the corporation, so that, according to the principles laid down by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, loss suffered on account of such a sale of securities was a trading loss. In view of what we have observed above, our answer to the question is in the negative. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Question answered in the negative.

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 8 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Whether assuming that there was no reasonable cause for the failures of the assessee as referred to in section 271(1)(a) and 271(1)(b), the ITO was right in applying the provisions of and imposing penalty under s. 271 of the IT Act, 1961 - Held, no

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Whether Tribunal acted rightly in upholding the application of section 297(2)(g) read with sections 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the delay in the submission of returns - If, yes, whether on the facts here, and on a proper interpretation of section 271(1), the penalty levied has been properly computed

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the entire income of the assessee`s wife or any portion thereof from money-lending business and coffee estates was correctly added to the assessee`s income - Held, yes - money lending business carried on in the name of his wife belonged to the assessee

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  This revision arises out of an application made by the plaintiff in a suit for the production by the Income-tax Officer of certain assessment proceedings relating to the first defendant in the suit - held that section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, which is the only clause relied on for the revenue, is not attracted to the omission of section 137. The consequence is that the general effect of repeal without reference to section 6(c) will apply

  ---

• 1966 (8) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Inclusion in the chargeable income of a total sum of Rs. 5,853 representing the difference between the purchase and sale prices of two houses - In the absence of a finding by the Tribunal that the purchase and sale of the houses was in the course of a trade in property or constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, no tax liability would attach to the sum of Rs. 5,853

  ---

1234