Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1971 1971 (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 81 to 100 of 159 Records

• 1971 (8) TMI 79 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) – the escaped income – officer had belief that income likely to have escaped assessmet was more than Rs. 50,000 - but the income that actually found to have escaped is less than Rs. 50,000 - validity of reassessment

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 78 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - legality and the validity of the estate duty assessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ction 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act neither violates article 14, nor article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. Section 34(1)(c) does not levy tax on property not passing on death, but only levies estate duty on the property passing on death, but at a rate applicable to the share of the deceased aggregated with the shares of the lineal descendants. The decision in Gunda Bhaskara Rao v. Controller of Estate Duty does not render any assistance to the petitioner. We see no reason to take a different view from the one taken in Writ Petition No. 4038 of 1969. The writ petition fails on all contentions and is accordingly dismissed. The review petition filed by Sri Siva Rao to review our decision in Writ Petition No. 4038 of 1969 also fails and is dismissed. The writ petitioner shall pay the costs to the department. Also the review petitioner in C.M.P. No. 3872 of 1971 shall pay the costs to the department. Advocate s fee Rs. 75 in the W. P. and Rs. 25 in the review petition.

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 77 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessee had to create a reserve fund out of its profits to be eligible for development rebate, under section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the year in which the new machinery is installed– held that, it is not necessary that the assessee should create the reserve if he has no taxable income in that year

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 76 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee-company which is a registered firm owned several collieries - This colliery could not be worked for some years by the applicant-firm but expenses had been claimed during the military occupation period on account of minimum royalty payable, the surface rent and small amount of salaries incurred for watch and ward purposes – expenditure was only part of the assessee's working expenses and was laid out as part of the process of profit making, therefore, expenditure must be held to be of revenue nature

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 75 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the property tax levied by the Punjab Government on the cinema houses was admissible as a deduction - only when the expenditure has intimate connection with the carrying on of the business that it can be claimed as a deduction

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 74 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee has not concealed his income represented by the difference between the cost of construction of the building as per the Appellate Tribunal's order and the assessee's accounts and in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) – HELD, yes

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 73 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Petitioner is an assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 - respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under section 18(2) requiring him to submit his return of income - but the petitioner did not file any return. Thereafter, the respondent issued a proposition notice under section 19(4) – and assessment was made accordingly at a higher figure than that noted in the proposition notice – held that such assessment order is bad

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 72 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Non filing of return due to misunderstanding of the provisions of law – levy of penalty - bona fide impression proved the absence of mens rea – penalty not leviable

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 71 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in allowing the expenditure of Rs. 26,100 being the respondent's contribution to Government for constructing a road as a permissible deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - road was dedicated to the public does not affect the nature of the payment - therefore, it is a capital expenditure and not deductible u/s 37(1)

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 70 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether assessee was entitled to the rebate contemplated u/s 87(1)(a) in respect of the sum being the insurance premium on the policy of the life of the assessee's husband paid not by the assessee but by the assessee's husband - in the context of section 87(1)(a), the words " the assessee " can only mean the person who is bound to file the return of the income and who is actually assessed to tax by the Income-tax Officer, namely, the wife, here – question is answered in negative

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 69 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the interpretation given by the Appellate Tribunal to Explanation (2) to rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was legal and proper and the consequent direction given for the deletion of income-tax paid by the employer, and the value of perquisites, viz., the use of the car, electricity charges and professional tax, reimbursed by the employer from the quantum of salary for computing the value of rent-free accommodation, was legally correct and justified - answer to the question is partly in the negative and against the assessee and partly in the affirmative and against the department

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 68 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the tax borne by the assessee's employer was includible in the total amount of salary for the purpose of computing the value of the rent-free accommodation given to the assessee under rule 24A of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922 - whether "salary" of the assessee would include the income-tax paid by the employer – held that ncome-tax paid by the employer is really part of the salary of the assessee within the meaning of the definition of the term in rule 24-A and that it must be included in the income of the assessee for the purpose of finding out the value of the rent-free accommodation

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 67 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Delay in filing the return – levy of penalty – notice u/s 139(2) - Tribunal was not right in holding that all the taxes paid by the partners could be taken into account for determination of quantum of penalty payable by the firm under section 271(1)(i) read with section 271(2) - Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that default under section 139(1) of the Act existed only till the date when the notice under section 139(2) of the Act was served upon the assessee

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Recovery Proceedings – certificate under section 46(2) - death of defaulter – is there a need to amend the certificate showing the legal representatives as the assessee – Held, no – held that revenue authorities were in order in proceeding with the recovery in pursuance of the certificate issued under section 46(2) of the Act and that there is no need to amend the certificate either by the income-tax authorities or by the Collector showing the legal representatives as the assessee

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 65 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  In section 2(47) "transfer" in relation to capital asset has been defined. It includes the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or the extinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law. And since "transfer" is independent of any other word in section 12B(1) preceding it and is of the widest import, we cannot accept the alternative argument of Mr. Pal that "transfer" in section 12B(1) involves a bilateral transaction. Our answer to the question in this reference is in the affirmative and in favour of the department.

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 64 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of the amount of commission paid to S. R. Dhodi against his share of profit from the Shalimar Cinema?" - Held that: There is also no force in the contention that the amount paid by the assessee as commission to Dhodi was for the benefit of the firm and not for that of the assessee. As stated above, the assessee had undertaken the responsibility of running the cinema strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the liceice and the rules in force. It was to discharge that personal responsibility that the assessee entered into an arrangement with Dhodi. The amount paid to Dhodi was thus for the benefit of the assessee and with a view to enable him to earn his share of the income of the partnership. We, therefore, answer the question, referred to this court, in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 63 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether it could be held that the provision for bonus, provision for taxation and provision for proposed dividends represented ' reserves' and were to be included in the computation of capital under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - question referred is answered in the affirmative

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 62 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Firm – registration – genuineness of firm

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s appeared to be motivated, the learned counsel for the revenue could not point to any circumstance which went to show that after the document dated May 2, 1957, was executed the business of Chitra Cinema was in fact not run on behalf of the three executants. We are accordingly of the opinion that material on the record as set out in the statement of the case, and in the orders of the revenue authorities, is not such on the basis of which a finding that the partnership in question was not genuine, can be recorded. In the result, we answer the, question In the affirmative and as follows There was no evidence on the basis of which the Tribunal could record the finding that the partnership evidenced by the deed of partnership dated May 2, 1957, was not genuine. The question having been answered in favour of the assessee, the assessee will be entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is also assessed at the same figure. Question answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 61 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 – Whether the Tribunal is right in upholding the inclusion of the amount gifted by the deceased to his grand-daughters, in the total value of the estate of the deceased under the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act - question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the department

  ---

• 1971 (8) TMI 60 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Sanction For Prosecution - Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing the prayer to recall witness to prove the alleged sanction to prosecute the petitioner for offences under section 276C of the Income-tax Act of 1961.

  ---

12345678