Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (7) 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 41 to 60 of 76 Records

• 1972 (7) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Accounts - To be kept by company

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ng activities, within the meaning of section 209(1)(d) of the Companies Act. Clause (d) of section 209(1) itself was inserted by section 20 of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1965, and it was to cover the records relating to the particulars mentioned in clause (d) that the expression, other books and papers appears to have been used. I, therefore, hold that this expression does not extend to the nomination papers, which the complainant wanted inspection of, and that the failure of the secretary to give inspection thereof does not constitute an offence within the meaning of section 209(5) of the Companies Act. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the lower court under section 209(4)(a) read with section 209(5) and (6) of the Companies Act are set aside as illegal, and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence of which he has been wrongly convicted. The criminal revision is allowed. The fine, if collected, will be refunded to the petitioner.

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 35 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Agricultural Land, Wealth Tax Act

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... al accepted it. The matter thereupon came to this court on a reference at the instance of the Commissioner. This court held that, having regard to the circumstances noted above, the prima facie presumption which arose on account of the present use of the land was not displaced merely because the land was plotted out and sold on yardage basis and that circumstance was not sufficient to change the nature and character of the land. The factors which were present in Narandas Motilal s case 1971 80 ITR 39 (Guj) are not present here and the decision cannot help the assessee in the present case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee had failed to show that on the relevant valuation dates the land in question was agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(e)(i). Ourt answer to the question referred to us is, therefore, in the affirmative. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference of the Commissioner.

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Debt Owed, Net Wealth, Valuation Date

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... roperly and in accordance with sound judicial principles when it refused to permit the Income-tax Officer to raise such an objection and in not sustaining the order of refusal of registration on that ground of defect in the application for registration. That apart, the particulars which are required to be shown in the Schedule to the application for registration are found in the instrument of partnership which is appended to the application. A reading of the application, along with the instrument of partnership, would make it abundantly clear that the shares of the partners have been specified. It is, in our opinion, a sufficient compliance with the requirements of law. We are, therefore, satisfied in this case that the Tribunal was justified in not sustaining the order of refusal of registration on the ground of defect in the application. We, therefore, answer the re-framed question in the negative. The department shall pay the costs of the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Firm – registration - delay in seeking registration - assessee had sufficient cause for the delay - whether separate application is necessary for condonation of the delay

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 – applicant-assessee wishes to withdraw the reference - whether the High Court is bound to answer the reference

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 31 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Hyderabad Income Tax Act - " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment on the association was invalid? (2) Whether the Tribunal was within its powers to re-hear the entire appeal and decide all issues which did not form the subject-matter of the reference before the High Court without any direction from the High Court? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has the power under law to uphold the ex parte assessment on the basis of an alleged non-compliance by D. D. Italia when the Income-tax Officer making the ex parte assessment did not refer to that default at all in the assessment order ?"

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 30 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Income-tax records - Confidential Nature - Whether income-tax records are confidential in nature and can be summoned to be produced in a court

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 29 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether bonus paid by an assessee to its workmen out of the profits of the previous year after the relevant valuation date is debt owed by the assessee so as to be deductible in computing the net wealth of the assessee - in the present case, it is apparent from the record that the claim of the workmen was settled and the amount of bonus determined subsequent to the relevant valuation date. This factual position was indeed not disputed on behalf of the assessee. If that be so, it must follow as a necessary consequence that liability for payment of bonus did not become a "debt owed" by the assessee until after the relevant valuation date and it was accordingly not deductible in computing the net wealth of the assessee

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 28 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessee's claim in each assessment year for allowance of a sum by way of development rebate in respect of the machinery and plant, etc., installed in one of the industrial units run by it was rightly disallowed - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had the power and jurisdiction to direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain and take into consideration the assessee's contention that the profits on sale of certain machinery were not taxable since the business was not in existence at any time during the relevant previous years

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 27 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  This reference raises a short but interesting question as to what is the date from which bonus shares issued by a company can be said to be held by an assessee: is it the date when they are issued or is it the date the original shares in respect of which they are issued were acquired by the assessee ? The question assumes importance because when bonus shares are sold by the assessee and there is capital gain, the incidence of tax on such capital gain varies according as the bonus shares are short-term capital assets or long-term capital assets. If they are short term capital assets, the incidence is higher : if they are long-term capital assets, the incidence is lower : and the question whether they are short term capital assets or long-term capital assets depends on how long they have been held by the assessee immediately preceding the date of transfer

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  These seven petitions being Criminal Revisions Nos. 49 to 55 of 1971, result from the recommendation made by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the sentences awarded to the respondents be enhanced so as to make them in conformity with the provisions of section 276B - Whether it is necessary to state particulars of each deduction from each employee and date of deduction in the notice regarding prosecution for failure to deposit the tax deducted amount with Central Government in time - whether an offence under s. 276B is committed, when deduction was made before 1st April 1968 and not deposited by that date

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution and raises an interesting question relating to the interpretation of sections 32 and 75 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - When the loss of a registered firm is allocated to the partners, whether the firm is entitled to carry forward and set off the loss for the purposes of the " firm tax - partners alone can carry forward any loss which remains unabsorbed as per section 32(2) and 75(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 - firm as such cannot carry forward the losses determined in its assessments - Petition dismissed

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Civil Suit - Interest On Refund - UOI did not press this issue. Otherwise also a suit cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the plaintiffs have not given their addresses within the jurisdiction of the court as required by rule 3 of Chapter 3 of the Delhi High Court Rules. This omission can always be corrected - The learned counsel for the Union argued that CIT has not been made a party to the suit and, therefore, the suit is defective. I do not agree with this contention. It is not necessary to make the CIT a party to the suit. The suit is properly constituted as the Union of India has been made a party to the suit - For the reasons given above I hold that interest cannot be awarded to the plaintiffs by this court - In the result, the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - case relates to the estate duty assessment in respect of the property of Sri Gaindamal who died on 14th October, 1964 - When the deceased gets money in cash which is invested in firm in which he was a partner whether the donor is excluded from any benefit and whether the amount and interest on it passes on the donor's death

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that : (a) capital reserve, (b) stocks and stores reserves, (c) bad and doubtful debts reserves, (d) obsolescence reserve, (e) loans and insurance reserves, (f) investment reserve, and (g) forfeited monies reserves, were to be included in the computation of capital according to the provisions in the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ? "

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Kanom Tenancy Act, 1955 - " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the jenmikaram payable by the kanom tenant to the jenmi is compensation for the extinguishment of the entire rights of the jenmi in the land of the kanom holding, as held by the Tribunal ? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the jenmikaram payable by the kanom tenant to the jenmi is income assessable to tax under the Income-tax Act or only a capital receipt ?"

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - conversion of proprietary business into partnership concern - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the gift is exempt under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to development rebate on the four new buses put on road after December 31, 1957 - Whether creation of reserve for the purpose of development rebate by debiting profit and loss account can be made at any time

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 18 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the value of the properties transferred by the assessees to their wives is includible in the total wealth of the assessee under section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Search and Seizure - Currency notes were seized from a person by police officer - inasmuch as the currency notes produced in court are not those seized by the authorised officer, or which he was empowered to seize strictly in terms of section 132(1)(iii), the revision-petitioner is not competent to claim to have the documents (currency notes) made over to him for purposes of investigation. As the discovery is not claimed to be as a result of the search of any building or place as referred to in clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 132, the question of applying the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 132 also cannot arise. I, therefore, find that the order passed by the learned Sub-Magistrate, which has been confirmed by the learned District Magistrate, is perfectly in order and that it calls for no interference by this court in revision

  ---

1234