Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1969 1969 (6) 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 21 to 35 of 35 Records

• 1969 (6) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Development rebate u/s 10(2)(vib) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - commission paid to Bank for standing guarantee for the purchase must be treated as a part of actual cost for the purposes of allowing development rebate

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Imposition of penalty u/s 18A(9)/28(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1922

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... itted an estimate of income for purposes of advance tax under section 18A(2) and the income fell far short of the sum assessed at regular assessment and the assessee was not able to show that his estimate was justified by the state of accounts as they stood on the date of the estimate, the order imposing the penalty could be lawfully passed. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case as mentioned hereinbefore in the background of the assessee s business we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the Income-tax Officer had materials before him to be satisfied that the estimates were submitted by the assessee in this case when the assessee had reason to believe them to be untrue. In that view of the matter the answer to the question referred to this court must be in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. SANKAR PRASAD MITRA J.- I agree. Question answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Ownership of premises - sale of property - in the case of a sale of immovable property a registered document is necessary to give effect to the sale - sale takes effect from the date of execution of the document - expression "income from property" used in ss. 6 and 9 of the IT Act 1922, refers to the income of the legal owner of the property who is the only person assessable to tax on the basis of the bonafide annual value thereof

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee, a private limited company advanced a loan to shareholder and a director of the company - whether the Tribunal was right in holding that clause (b) of the second proviso to paragraph D of Part II of the Finance Act, 1956, did not authorise the withdrawal of a part of the rebate granted to the assessee in respect of any sum advanced by the assessee - Held, yes

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 12 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Notice of demand were issued to an association of persons u/s. 29 - following which, a certificate was forwarded under section 46(2)for recovery -petitioners pray to quash these notices and to forbid the Tax Recovery Officer from proceeding with the recovery

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Managing agency commission - allowability as deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that the agricultural operations carried on by the assessee were not part of the same indivisible business. Furthermore, the question whether this was an indivisible business or not was not raised before the Tribunal and it is not possible for us at this late stage to allow the revenue to agitate this question. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Bank Ltd. and of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. and in view of the terms and conditions of the managing agency agreement before us in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in coming to its decision that the disallowance was correctly made. In that view of the matter, the question referred to this court must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Each party will bear and pay its own costs. SANKAR PRASAD MITRA J.- I agree. Question answered in the negative.

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 10 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Certificates were issued under s. 222 of the New Act for the recovery of the amounts due - Power/competency of TRO - recovery proceeding commenced by one TRO named in the certificate could, be continued by another TRO of the same area - new certificate under s. 222 of the new Act with respect to such recovery is scarcely necessary

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Allowability of property tax paid by the assessee in Japan on its vessels as deduction u/s. 10(2)(xv)

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether assessee to explain to show cause in order to get benefit of the proviso to Section 184(4) - petitioner himself was the applicant and he is expected to know the law which makes it clear that if the application had not been made within the time specified, it could only be entertained if sufficient cause is shown for the delay to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer. The assessee cannot convert his default into an occasion for pleading natural justice asking for an opportunity

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 6 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Correct rate of tax applicable - Whether the assessee's income for nine months ended on March 31, 1950, could have been rightly assessed at the rate applicable for twelve months' income - Held, no

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Impartible Estate

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... be an estate enjoyed by the Hindu undivided family. Having considered all the circumstances that have been placed before us and the documentary and other evidence to which the Tribunal has referred we cannot but hold that the conclusion which it reached that the property held by the sharers by reason of the grant was not impartible, was correct. It is clear that the saranjam as it was orginially granted was itself partible and that successive holders of the saranjam or sharers in the saranjam had successively partitioned it between themselves and the members of their family. It must, therefore, be held that it was not a grant to one individual but a grant to the Hindu undivided family and that it was partible. If it was partible then section 9(4) would not be attracted. In the result, we answer the question referred in the affirmative. The Commissioner shall pay the costs of the application for reference. No order on the notice of motion. No order as to costs of the motion.

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Loss on account of the payment of retrenchment compensation to the employees of A Ltd. with a view to effect the sale of that company - held that it is admissible as deduction in computing the assessee`s income from business

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Company - Entitlement to exemption u/s 23A

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ecided against the assessee. Coming now to the third question, the same, in our opinion, must be answered in favour of the assessee. It may be that, on merits, the assessee might not have been able to claim that an order against it under section 23A was not justified as, having regard to the smallness of the profits, a dividend higher than what was declared by the assessee was unreasonable. But in the order of the Tribunal the merits of the claim have not been considered and it has disallowed the claim on the ground that before the assessee could raise the claim it had to satisfy the condition, viz., that it should have distributed the whole of the commercial profits available to it. That view of the Tribunal is clearly wrong and the question as framed, therefore, has got to be answered in favour of the assessee. We accordingly answer the first question in the negative, the second and the third questions in the affirmative. The assessee will pay the costs of the Commissioner.

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Interest On Borrowed Capital - allowability as deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ant matter for consideration. The matter to be decided is whether the amount of interest was paid in fact in respect of the capital borrowed for business. The view taken by the Income-tax Officer, therefore, that the assessee could have decreased the extent of its borrowings by collecting its outstandings and, therefore, would not be entitled to claim interest paid by it on borrowed capital is not capable of being sustained. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner s view that the assessee had diverted the capital borrowed by it for making advances to the Bombay Chronicle Pvt. Ltd. or to Messrs. Cama Norton and Co. is clearly wrong on the facts of the case. The ground on which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has disallowed the claim, therefore, is not capable of being sustained. In the result, therefore, the answer to the question raised on the present reference is in the affirmative. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the assessee. Question answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1969 (6) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Loss on conversion of the unremitted profit in Pakistan from Pakistani rupee to Indian rupee - loss would merely be a loss due to depreciation in value of capital asset - therefore, the loss was not allowable loss

  ---

12