Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (3) 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 61 to 80 of 94 Records

• 1967 (3) TMI 34 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Capital gains - information in possession of ITO - reason to believe - It is not a case of change of opinion on the part of the ITO - it is a clear case of the ITO having received information through the judgment of the Tribunal that this amount should be treated as capital gains

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Writ petitions are filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of appropriate writs - Petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the order of attachment

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Reasonable opportunity of being heard - section 33B - natural justice - CIT had not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, therefore, the Commissioner had acted without jurisdiction and this is a fit case where a writ or appropriate order must issue to give relief to the petitioner

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Failure to deduct tax at source - order of the Income-tax Officer, made under section 18(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 - Whether the sum of rupees one lakh represented salary for the purpose of section 7

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 30 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Tribunal misdirect itself in law in coming to the finding that the loss arising from the sale of shares was not deductible from the profits of the company - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 29 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Income from immovable properties forming part of the assets of the assessee-firm falls properly to be assessed u/s. 9(1) of the IT Act, 1922, in the hands of the firm and not u/s. 9(3) of the said Act in the hands of the respective partners of the firm

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 28 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Balancing Charge - allowable deduction - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 4,350 in the computation of the profits u/s. 41(2)

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 27 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - registration - tribunal's finding - finding of fact

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the case, the partnership should have been registered by the income-tax authorities under section 26A of the Income-tax Act? A Bench of this court then referred only one question, namely, question No. 3 on the view that question No. 2 would also be covered by this one, because otherwise there was no point in referring even question No. 3, if the finding that the firm was not a genuine one, was not to be interfered with. If a firm is a bogus one, then under no circumstances, can it be registered under section 26A. The case of India Cements Ltd. is of no assistance to the revenue, because in the instant case, an application under section 66(1) was made challenging the validity of the finding regarding the genuineness of the firm given by the Tribunal. That application had been rejected by the Tribunal and the petitioner then moved this court under section 66(2) for that very relief which was granted by this court. A. N. GROVER J.- I agree. Question answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 26 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - registration u/s. 26A of the IT Act

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s. It has been found as a fact that all the partners were actually carrying on the business. The partnership which was formed, therefore, was essentially one which was meant to conduct the business in contravention of the law. It is not possible to understand how such a partnership could ever be accorded registration under section 26A of the Act. In conclusion it may be mentioned that the decision of this court in Benarsi Das and Company s case has been followed in a recent decision of the Orissa High Court in Mohapatra Bhandar v. Commissioner of Income-tax. There the question was substantially the same as is to be found in the present case. Mr. Dewan has not been able to persuade us that the previous decision of this court requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. The answer to the question, therefore, is returned in the negative. In view of the entire circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. P. C. PANDIT J.- I agree. Question answered in the negative.

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Held that assessee-company, which was established in 1924, can not be entitled to the five years' tax holiday provided in s. 45(d) of the WT Act, 1957, in respect of the new section started by it in August, 1955, for the manufacture of worsted wool yarn

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  In computing the income from business assessable u/s. 10, the loss in speculative transactions either in whole or to the extent of the other business income, could not be set off against other business income having regard to the proviso to s. 24(1)

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Excess profits tax could not be recovered - suit claiming adjustment of tax was not barred by the statute - adjustment of tax was not possible

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT
  

  High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under s. 66 - High Court should have called for a supplementary statement under s. 66(4) of the IT Act and not gone into the facts itself and come to the conclusion that the ITO was right in holding that a pilot plant had been set up by the assessee, which became the starting point of the enterprise - Appeal of revenue allowed - Case remanded

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Bad debts - Tribunal held that the amount was not advanced in the course of money-lending business and that the debt had become bad prior to the year of account - there was any material on which the Tribunal could arrive at the finding that the debts had become bad prior to the year of account in question - assessee's appeal dismissed

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether after partition of the family an order of assessment could be made by the Income-tax Officer?

  Held that:- The statement of the case by the Tribunal is incomplete in that the Tribunal has not set out its conclusion on a material issue of fact. We are also of the opinion that the question referred by the Tribunal should be refrained as follows :

  " Whether in the circumstances of the case, the assessment was validly made on the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family ? "

  The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Additional depreciation on two reconditioned machines imported by the Appellant - whether two reconditioned machines purchased by the appellant are new machines within the meaning of s. 10(2)(via) of the IT Act and whether the appellant is entitled to depreciation under that sub-section - Appeal allowed - Case remanded

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT
  

  The High Court had only to consider whether a question of law which may be supported by reasonable argument, arose out of the order of the Tribunal - hence question may not ultimately be decided in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Application of the assessee firm for registration under s. 26A - Whether the order cancelling renewal of registration was proper and justified - Held, no - appeal of assessee must therefore be allowed and the order passed by the High Court set aside

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the reassessment under section 34 of the Act is valid in law ?

  Held that:- The High Court was in error in holding that a finding or direction by an appellate authority in an order relating to assessment of one year may warrant the avoidance of the bar of limitation under section 34(1) of the Act against initiation of proceedings for assessment for another assessment year against the same assessee or against another assessee.

  The Appellate Assistant Commissioner may hold, on the evidence, that the income shown by the assessee was not the income for the relevant year and thereby exclude that income from the assessment of the year under appeal. The finding in that context is that the income did not belong to the relevant year. He may incidentally find that the income belonged to another year, but that is not a finding necessary for, the disposal of an appeal in respect of the year of assessment in question. Thus a finding within the second proviso to section 34(3) must be necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment of the year in question. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1967 (3) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the gain of Rs. 49,400 made by the sale of 200 shares of Radha Films Limited was a venture in the nature of trade and whether the said amount of gain was of a 'capital nature' or an 'income from business' taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act - SC remand the case to HC with the direction that the High Court do refer the case to the Tribunal for recording its supplementary statement

  ---

12345