Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1968 1968 (12) 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 76 of 76 Records

• 1968 (12) TMI 16 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - inclusion of value of the property settled (in favour of the deceased's wife, three sons and two grandsons) in the estate of the deceased u/s. 9 of the Estate Duty Act

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Section 297(2)(d)(i) - "service" of a notice - "Issue" of notice - it does not appear that it can be firmly stated that the provisions of the repealed Act are more onerous - provisions of s. 297(2)(d)(i) are not discriminatory or violative of the provisions of art. 14 of the Constitution, but are intra vires and valid

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Dividend declared - grossing up u/s 16(2)- inclusion in total income

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... worth. It necessarily follows that the grossing up is to be confined to the actual money portion out of the money s worth the shareholder receives. And when the shareholder claims the benefit of tax deducted at the source he is entitled to the benefit of what was actually deducted from his dividend income, and paid by the dividend paying company to the Central Government. If any refund is to be made to the shareholder, the refund would be naturally limited to the amount which the Central Government has actually received and cannot be extended to an amount which the Government has not received. The dictum of Rowlatt J. in Gimson v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, at page 253, that a shareholder can only recover back tax which the money lie received has suffered is, in our view, attracted to these cases. In the premises, the answer to the question in this reference is in the negative. The assessee will pay to the Commissioner his costs of the reference. P. CHATTERJEE J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Jurisdiction of Commissioner u/s 33B to revise the orders of the ITO granting refunds in respect of assessments relating to the three years long before the coming into force of section 33B - held that Commissioner was well within his powers u/s 33B in revising the orders of the ITO

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 12 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment - assessment orders made under sections 31 and 34(3) - limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ) would be applicable because the members of the appellant-firm could not be regarded as strangers to the proceedings which resulted in the assessment order made in respect of them on the basis of their constituting a Hindu undivided family along with others and that they were intimately connected with the person whose assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer and set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on whose, direction fresh assessment proceedings were taken. The Bench, consisting of Ramaswami and Grover JJ, agreed with the view taken by the High Court and rejected the appeal. We find little difficulty, having regard to the judgment in Muylidhar Bhagwan Das case and the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Daffadar Bhagat Sinogh v. Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Ferozepure (Civil Appeal No. 962/66) in answering the question referred for our opinion in the affirmative and in favour of the department, with costs. Advocate s fee in each of the R. C. Rs. 75.

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Loan to government - Whether loan was a security of the State Govt. within the meaning of section 8 of the IT Act. Whether the interest on the loan is exempt from tax in the hands of the assessees under the third proviso to section 8 - Held, yes

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 10 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - levy of estate duty under section 24 on the value of Ac. 25.00 of wet land

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Tribunal was right in disallowing the claim for deduction of wealth-tax payable by the assessee as an admissible business expenditure - Held, yes - futher it is held that first proviso to section 12B(2) of the IT Act, 1962, cannot be invoked by the department for the purpose of assessment to capital gains

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 8 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Whether the Board were correct in holding that the sum standing in the names of the daughters-in-law of the deceased, could not be deducted in computing the principal value of the estate of the deceased - Held, yes

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 7 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Illegal partnership - renewal of registration - authorities were justified in refusing registration

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee's bank deposits were treated by the Income-tax Officer as the assessee's income from undisclosed source - tribunal decided in favour of assessee - Tribunal was, justified in allowing the appeals - appellate decision of the Tribunal does not raise any question of law

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Reference on an application by the department, arises out of an order of the Tribunal which accepted, the contention of the assessee, that the share of profits received by him as partner of the firm, was not his real income, but was income which he was bound to share with other persons under an agreement therefor

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee was allotted shares of limited companies on partition of his HUF - After the partition, he married an Australian lady who has a Christian - He was originally assessed to income tax and wealth tax in the status on an individual - Whether, the assessee and his son constituted a HUF for purposes of assessment under the Income-tax, Wealth-tax and Expenditure-tax Acts - Held, yes

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Can the order of assessment be cancelled by the rectification u/s 154 - Held, Yes - The power to rectify u/s 154 is one which is apparent on the record and can extend even to the extent of cancelling an order of assessment, where it is required for elimination of the error

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 2 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee`s remuneration as director of a company registered in Bhopal, did not accrue or arise to him within the State of Bhopal, then an Indian State, and that the provisions of section 14(2)(c) of the IT Act, 1922, were, therefore, not attracted - Held, yes

  ---

• 1968 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Sec. 277 of the IT Act is not violative of either art. 14 or art. 20(2) of the Constitution - there is repugnancy/inconsistency and the two enactments i.e., IPC and General Clauses Act can not stand together - Assessee appeal dismissed

  ---

1234