Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 142 Records
-
1970 (3) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Duty to disclose facts - assessee,Indian company - whether the notice for reassessment can be issued to the parent company, especially if the Indian Company has been giving the similar information for several years - no omission or failure on the part of the petitioner-company so as to justify action under sections 147 and 148
-
1970 (3) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Issuing notice for reassessment - reasons for the issue of the notice ... ... ... ... ..... ome had escaped assessment. I have repeatedly pointed out that in such cases it would have been so easy for the Income-tax Officer to state the reasons for his belief that income has escaped assessment. In the case under consideration the fact that one of the partners had disclosed that he had made advances to the firm in the fictitious names of other persons would certainly be a very strong reason for the Income-tax Officer to believe that other partners might also have introduced money into the firm in fictitious names. But, apparently, the authorities of the department are averse to take even the small trouble of going through the records and pointing out the obvious reasons for taking the action that they have purported to take. In this case I must hold that there was some reason for the respondent -Income-tax Officer to have issued the notice under section 148 and this rule must be discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, would be vacated.
-
1970 (3) TMI 20 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Registration of a firm - Tribunal can not rest its conclusion on legal dues without recording findings - while dealing with an application for the registration, the Tribunal should examine whether the recitals in the partnership deed are correct
-
1970 (3) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Validity of the order of the tribunal - order was not based on any material/evidence - tribunal has not given any reason - order is held cryptic
-
1970 (3) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - original assessment order was made under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - period of limitation for reassessment under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was eight years - since original assessment order was made under Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 on 29-07-1953, notice issued on 26-07-1965 under s. 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 is not valid
-
1970 (3) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Export through non-resident agents - some of the non-resident agents act as agents-cum-buyers - tax liability - action for recovery of tax in default in respect of payments to non-resident traders - notice to treat the company as agent for recovery of tax - legality of notice
-
1970 (3) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33B was vitiated as it was passed on an erroneous finding that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction over the assessee - since finding of the Commissioner that the ITO had no jurisdiction over the assessee was correct, Tribunal was wrong in holding that the order of the Commissioner under section 33B was vitiated
-
1970 (3) TMI 15 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income earned by the assessee`s wife from assets - inclusion of said income in assessee's income
-
1970 (3) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether the overhead expenses under the heads of salaries and travelling expenses of general staff, general charges, legal expenses, postage, registration fee, etc., directors` fees and travelling expenses and managing agents` office allowance, incurred by the assessee could be apportioned between agricultural and business activities of the company and were not admissible as deductions in their entirety in computing the income of the company - Held, no
-
1970 (3) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
When the application for renewal of registration was pending before the ITO, the CIT made an order u/s 5(7A) transferring the case of the assessee to the ITO - Whether in the appeal under section 30 to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the orders under section 26A and section 23(3) the point of the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer could be validly raised - Held, no
-
1970 (3) TMI 12 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Notice for payment of advance tax - Notice sent by registered post not properly served - no notice u/s 18A(1) having been given to the assessee - therefore, penalty provision of sub-section (9) of section 18A was not attracted
-
1970 (3) TMI 11 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Whether section 131(3) cast any duty on ITO to communicate reasons for impounding any books of account on other documents to an assessee - Held, no
-
1970 (3) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income from undisclosed sources - Imposition of penalty u/s 28(1)(c), Indian Income Tax Act, 1922
-
1970 (3) TMI 9 - ASSAM AND NAGALAND HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the refusal of registration to the assessee-firm on the ground that no genuine firm came into existence under the deed - Held, yes
-
1970 (3) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Company went into voluntary liquidation and the petitioner was appointed as liquidator - Whether the petitioner can be made personally liable for the tax due by the company - Held, no
-
1970 (3) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Power of Tax Recovery Officer to levy or recover any demand interest ... ... ... ... ..... icer. Further, the relative or relevant recovery proceedings in the instant case from the moment. they were taken over by the Tax Recovery Officer appear to be proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (vide Schedule II of the Act), and not under the Public Demands Recovery Act, and, as a matter of fact, the appeal to the Commissioner was filed under the said Schedule,--and so section 16(a) of this latter Act (Public Demands Recovery Act) would not apply. In the above view, we would uphold the ultimate decision of the learned Commissioner and accept the opposite party s objection to the recovery of the disputed amounts by the Tax Recovery Officer and this rule must be discharged accordingly. We would, however, make it clear that this order will be without prejudice to the Union s rights, if any, under the law, to recover the disputed accounts by appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs in this rule. AMIYA KUMAR MOOKERJEE J.- I agree.
-
1970 (3) TMI 6 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Land - taxable wealth - held that lands of the assessee were ``agricultural lands`` within the meaning of section 2(e)(i) of the Act
-
1970 (3) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether petitioner entitled to issuance of Tax Clearance Certificate under section 230A of the IT Act - Held, yes
-
1970 (3) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - petition by department -seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the Tribunal which by its order granted a stay of the collection of the gift-tax payable by the first respondent pursuant to the orders of the assessing authority, pending disposal of the appeal - held that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant such stay during the pendency of the appeal before it - no question of wrongful exercise of jurisdiction, therefore, arises
-
1970 (3) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Litigation expenditure - allowability under section 10(2)(xv) of the IT Act, 1922 ... ... ... ... ..... read with section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, can be sentenced to undergo imprisonment which may extend to two years. The nature of charge in the criminal case against Chaman Lal was of a contravention alleged to have been personally committed by him and the object of spending money on his defence in that case was to save him from being sent to jail. It, cannot consequently, be said that the expenditure of Rs. 6,000 was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee-firm. The fact that the acquittal of Chaman Lal was important for the reputation of the assessee-firm would not detract from the above conclusion. We, therefore, are of the view that the expenditure of Rs. 6,000 is not a permissible allowance under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. The question referred to this court is consequently answered in the negative. Looking to all the facts, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of the reference. Question answered in the negative.
....
|