Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1985 1985 (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 221 to 236 of 236 Records

• 1985 (8) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d not been challenged as perverse, the question was answered in favour of the Revenue. In the instant case, the Tribunal has found in favour of the assessee. There is no difference between the facts of this case and the facts in the earlier assessment years where this court has held in favour of the assessee. We see no reason to differ from the earlier decisions. The views of the other High Courts on similar questions are not binding on us. The contention of the Revenue that the amounts in dispute were taxable under section 28(iv), in our view, is of little substance. It has been consistently held that the amounts involved reached the hands of the assessee not as a benefit or perquisite of business but on account of the consumers to whom the amounts really belonged and that the assessee was accountable for the same. For the reasons above, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. G. N. RAY J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Offence And Prosecution Under Gift Tax, Prosecution

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... g in section 35 of the Gift-tax Act to justify this contention. Section 35 makes non-filing of a return punishable. The obligation to file a return is imposed by section 13(1) which requires every person who had made any taxable gift to file a return of gift in the prescribed manner within the prescribed time. Section 13(2) casts an obligation upon a person to file a return when he is served with a notice by the Gift-tax Officer. In my judgment, the distinction sought to be drawn by Mr. Murarka between a return to be filed under section 13(1) and section 13(2) in respect of the criminal liability is without any substance. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition succeeds. There will be an order in terms of prayers (a) and (c) of the petition. There will be no order as to costs. An oral prayer has been made for stay of operation of the order on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer is refused.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 15 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Question Of Law

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ees of Raja Baldeodas Birla Santati Kosh in May, 1943, has not been proved and that the said finding was arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal ignoring relevant evidence and/or material on record ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the consent of all the major beneficiaries of Raja Baldeodas Birla Santati Kosh was not obtained in respect of the donation of the aforesaid shares by the trustees of the Santati Kosh to the Birla Jankalyan Trust, was arrived at by ignoring relevant evidence and/or material on record ? As the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has already stated the case and has referred four questions arising out of its order dated September 23, 1976, to this court by its order dated June 22, 1979, it would suffice if the Appellate Tribunal makes a supplementary statement of the case, as may be necessary, and refers the aforesaid two questions also to this court. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... in respect of the assessees and whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and cancelling the assessments made under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the contents of the report of the Valuation Officer obtained in the case of Smt. Gulnar Marfatia could constitute material for the Wealth-tax Officer for having reason to believe that by reason of the omission of the assessees to make return under section 14, the net wealth of the assessees chargeable to tax had escaped assessment ? We allow all these applications and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the above two questions of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated February 16, 1981, to this court for its opinion. It would be open to the Appellate Tribunal to send one consolidated reference in all these cases, if it so likes.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal To Supreme Court, New Industrial Undertaking

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... has also been used in section 256 of the Income-tax Act where the Appellate Tribunal is required to draw up a statement of case if it considers that the opinion of the High Court is to be obtained on certain questions of law arising out of its order. This also makes it clear that there is no warrant for the submission of counsel for the Revenue that the certificate should mention each question in respect of which the appeal could be filed. The High Court has to state the reasons for the grant of a certificate but once the certificate is granted and appeal filed pursuant to it, there will be no restriction, either in the scope of the appeal or the jurisdiction of the appellate court to deal with it. In view of the above reasons, we have arrived at a conclusion that this is a fit case for grant of a certificate under section 261 of the Income-tax Act for the purpose of filing an appeal in the Supreme Court. A certificate shall, accordingly, issue. We make no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 1 of the possibility of an enhancement of the excess profits tax cannot be upheld as on the respondent s own showing, the revised assessments had not been completed then. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is to be set aside. I order accordingly. While allowing the writ petition, I remand the matter to the Commissioner of Incometax, Delhi, for deciding afresh the question of condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions for the assessment years 1940-41 to 1946-47. It is open to the petitioners to file before the Commissioner documents and affidavits in support of their plea seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions. This direction has become necessary in view of the submission of counsel for the respondent that the record maintained by the Commissioner s office has been misplaced. I had asked him to produce it in the court for my perusal but he was unable to do so. The petition is allowed but with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... clear under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that merely because the Commissioner of Income-tax had chosen not to waive the penalty, it could not be a ground for holding that the appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not maintainable. In our opinion, the matter thus stands fully concluded by the aforesaid two decisions of this court and the question referred has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department by holding that under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not right in holding that no appeal was maintainable before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in view of the orders under section 271(4A) of the Commissioner of Income-tax. However, since the appeal preferred by the Department has been rejected not on merits, the matter shall be remanded to the Tribunal for decision on merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Offences And Prosecution

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... admittedly the offence under section 277 was punishable with a maximum imprisonment for two years and was, therefore, triable as a summons case. The provisions of section 256, Criminal Procedure Code, apply to this case and in this case, in default of the complainant, the accused stands acquitted. It is, therefore, a final order and the same cannot be reviewed as per the bar imposed by section 362, Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court s order, ordering restoration of the complaint and reviewing the earlier order, is, therefore, totally illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. A distinction has to be made by the courts below in respect of a final order under section 256 and one of discharge under section 249, Criminal Procedure Code. In the result, therefore, Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 1985 is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and not set aside and the original order of dismissal of complaint resulting in the acquittal of the accused is confirmed.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 9 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ourt should decide the revision petition on merits. He added that the court need not enter into the formalities of first obtaining an application from the respondent for setting aside the order dated May 18, 1984, and then proceed to decide its legality. However, I cannot agree with learned counsel. At this time, the question before me is as to the legality of the order dated October 27, 1984. A formal application will have to be given by the respondent for setting aside the order dated May 18, 1984, and then the matter will be gone into because unless there is a formal application, the present petitioner will be virtually debarred from fully defending the order dated May 18, 1984. Under the above circumstances, I accept the petition, set aside the order dated October 27, 1984, and direct that the revision petition pending before the Additional Sessions judge shall remain dismissed in terms of the order dated May 18, 1984. Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1985 stands disposed of.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Deduction, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... been further held that it is well settled that When an appeal is filed against an assessment order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessment is thrown open and the appellate proceeding constitutes a continuation of the assessment proceeding. Even if the tax liabilities, of which a deduction was claimed, were created by rectification orders or by assessment orders made after the date of the wealth-tax assessment order under appeal, the law requires the claim to deduction being considered on the same basis as if it had been made in the original wealth-tax assessment proceedings. Similar is the view taken in the case of CWT v. Vadilal Lallubhai 1984 145 ITR 7 (SC). In view of these decisions, the question has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Accordingly, the question referred to us for our opinion is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Body Of Individuals

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... iduals ? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income for the period September 16, 1967 to December 31, 1967 (assessment year 1968-69) and for the period June 1, 1969 to June 30, 1969 (assessment year 1970-71) is to be assessed as income of the body of individuals along with respective assessments ? The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that all the three questions stand concluded against the assessee by a decision of the Division Bench of this court in (Meera and Company v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 564 (P and H)). Accordingly, all the three questions are answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessees and in favour of the Revenue. Learned counsel for the assessees, however, urges that the earlier decision is under challenge in the Supreme Court. We are answering the questions not on the concession of the assessees and it would, therefore, be open to them to challenge this judgment as well.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 6 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ssment year 1947-48 and for other years involved in those cases in the manner done by the Incometax Officer. For the detailed reasons mentioned in the consolidated order dated May 14, 1985, in the aforesaid taxation cases ( 1958 158 ITR 278 (Pat) ), I hold in this case also that the Tribunal was correct in holding that no competent appeal lay before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the rectification order of the Income-tax Officer and that the Tribunal was correct in entertaining the departmental appeal and in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that the Tribunal was also justified in holding that section 34(1D) of the 1922 Act was not a bar to the Revenue in rectifying the assessment order for the assessment year 1947-48 in the manner done by the Income-tax Officer. All the three questions are accordingly answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. However, there will be no order as to costs. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Assessee firm was constituted by the wife with a third person, and children were admitted to the profits of the firm - The share income of the wife and minor children included in the assessee's total income under s. 16(3) of the Act should be regarded as business income derived from business carried on by the assessee and, in that view of the matter, the assessee is entitled to set off his loss carried forward from the previous years.

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Neither the deed of partnership was signed by partner nor was the application for registration in accordance with the rules. Therefore, the firm was not entitled to registration under s. 26A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The law enjoins that the deed of partnership must be signed personally by each partner - the registration of the firm has rightly been refused

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  High Court obviously fell into an error in proceeding on the footing that without a partition or a partial partition, some of the members belonging to the Hindu undivided family could not constitute themselves into a partnership firm - Once conditions are satisfied, it is the obligation of the ITO under the Act to extend the benefit of registration and allow the firm to enjoy the benefits provided by the Act

  ---

• 1985 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Question arising for determination relates to the priority between current depreciation and unabsorbed carried forward business loss, that is to say, which should be deducted first while computing the total income of an assessee for the concerned assessment year - held that unabsorbed business loss of earlier year is deductible only after depreciation of the current year.

  ---

1 ....89101112