Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (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 61 to 80 of 90 Records

• 1972 (8) TMI 30 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Transfer of individual property by the partner to the firm - difference between the written down value and the amount credited in partnership account – whether it should be treated as capital gain - whether the sum of Rs. 20,000 can be treated to be the income of the assessee under section 41(2)

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the amount standing to the credit of the 'retirement gratuity reserve' is to be treated as a 'reserve' and has to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the capital under the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ? "

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  This is a petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent from pursuing the reassessment proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued by him under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the finding of the Tribunal refusing exemption to the assessee from business profits tax on the 25 annas share of the trustees of the Kamla Town Trust is correct in law ? Whether, under the provisions of section 10(2)(vi), proviso (b), of the Income-tax Act, the unabsorbed depreciation of the unregistered firm in 1949-50 can be allowed as a deduction in the assessments of the partners of the registered firm in the assessment year 1950-51? Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in disallowing interest to the Kamla Town Trust during the assessment year in question ? "

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the levy of the capital gains on the registered firm - Whether Tribunal was justified in law in disallowing the benefits under section 54(i) on the value of the house property purchased by one of the partners for the residence of the partner - Whether Tribunal was correct in law in disallowing the exemption in respect of Rs. 25,000 being the general exemption granted to a registered firm and whether the interpretation placed on the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1967 read along with section 114 of the Income-tax Act is in accordance with law

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Sales Tax - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in excluding from the assessment the sum of Rs. 4,155 representing sales tax deposits ?"

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 24 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  New Industrial Undertaking - loss in one business and profit in another - whether they are to be setoff to work out rebate under section 84

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 23 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act - For the assessment year 1967-68, the respondent made an order of assessment on the petitioner on March 11, 1968. While determining the taxable income for the assessment year, certain depreciation allowances on the assets of the petitioner were allowed. The said order of assessment was rectified by the respondent in exercise of the powers vested under section 37 of the Act by his order dated May 28, 1971 The said order has been challenged in this writ petition on several grounds. One of the grounds was that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before making an order of rectification. The second ground was that the view of the law taken by the respondent with regard to the allowance of initial depreciation is patently erroneous

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - assessee involved is a firm which showed payment of commission to another firm - transaction was found to be bogus and the assessee agreed to include the commission in its total income

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  This reference arises out of an order of penalty passed against the assessee under section 221, sub-section (1), read with section 218 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Kartas of two families formed a company and were appointed as joint managing director and technical director - whether the remuneration received by them would be their individual income - The burden is on the revenue to show that what is apparent on the face of the resolution is not real and that the remuneration was paid to Prafulkumar by reason of utilisation of his joint family property in the shape of share in the business. This burden the revenue has failed to discharge and in the absence of any material to the contrary brought forward on behalf of the revenue, we must reach the conculsion that there was no direct or substantial connection between the remuneration earned Prafulkumar and the joint family property invested in the company. Prafulkumar was not appointed an engineer and technical director as a result of any outlay or expenditure of or detriment to the joint family property. We, therefore, agree with the Tribunal that the income received by Prafulkumar was his individual income and not that of his Hindu undivided family

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the expenditure, depreciation and development rebate in respect of extraction of limestone from mines could be allowed as business expenditure – bold that the assessee commenced its business when it started the activity of extraction of limestone by quarrying the leased area of land. Since extraction of limestone commenced from April, 1958, it must be held that the assessee was carrying on business during the relevant years of account and the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in carrying on the activity of extraction of limestone as also depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the machinery employed in extracting limestone were deductible in computing the trading profits of the assessee

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Net wealth - In respect of the valuation date, March 31, 1957, he filed a return under the Wealth-tax Act showing a net wealth of Rs. 2,42,692. The assessee had claimed, among other things, a deduction of Rs. 1,67,279 as representing the liability for payment of income-tax in respect of the assessment years 1955-56 to 1957-58. The Wealth-tax Officer held that this amount did not represent a final ascertained liability as on March 31, 1957, and as such it was not an allowable deduction - When the assessee challenges the income-tax assessment after the valuation date whether the tax liability can be treated as a debt owed

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was open to the Income-tax officer under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to reconsider the assessee's claim in respect of the losses from the Thatchanallur Sugar Mill business for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 - When a notice issue under section 34(1)(a) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 is for one item whether other items can be taken up

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  First case is with reference to an assessment made under the Wealth-tax Act while the other is with reference to an assessment made under the Estate Duty Act – held that property constructed out of the joint family funds which was used by the pilgrims and not by the members of the family is the trust property, It cannot be subjected to Estate Duty or wealth-tax - building " Nataraja Nilayam " is a trust property and that neither the deceased nor the assessee has any proprietary interest therein. Therefore, the inclusion of the half share of the value of " Nataraja Nilayam " in the net wealth of the assessee for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63 cannot be justified.

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Undisclosed income of the HUF - penalty order passed on the date of division of the family – whereas order under section 25A(3) was passed subsequently

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 14 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee initially filed his returns as an individual - later, he filed two returns as individuals and HUF - Tribunal was not right in cancelling the order of assessment

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Levy of penalty under section 221(1) - petitioner defaulted in the payment of income-tax assessed on him

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Managing agency agreement - right to receive share income - basis adopted for the valuation of the goodwill - hold that the deceased's share in the two managing agency firms had rightly been included in his estate - Deputy Controller valued the goodwill by estimating the profits which would have been earned for the period of seven years. But the Board, on appeal, re-valued the goodwill on the basis of actual profits – hold that valuation of goodwill on the basis of the actual profits would be proper

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Rental receipts – income from property vis-s-vis income from business - company closes down its business and after sale of machinery lets out the building - rent received by the assessee could only be traced to the ownership of the building - It could not be said to be income from the business of film production especially when assessee had sold all the machinery required for the film production - income should be assessed under the head "income from property

  ---

12345