Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1962 1962 (3) 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 87 of 87 Records

• 1962 (3) TMI 8
  

  Whether a debt had become irrecoverable and was to be treated as a bad debt in 1947 was one of fact and not liable to be reopened in a reference under section 66 of the Income-tax Act, for there was evidence on which the conclusions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal could be founded?

  Held that:- In this case before the Tribunal there was evidence on which it could hold that the debt had become bad in the year 1947. If the debt had become had in the year 1947, by its mere subsequent amalgamation unilaterally made by the creditor with a debt which was recoverable, it did not cease to be bad. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1962 (3) TMI 7
  

  whether an appeal lay against the order of Mehrotra J. rejecting the application for review filed by the appellants to a division bench of the High Court?

  Held that:- The application was filed only under section 11 of the Act and no attempt was made either before Mehrotra J. or before the division bench of the High Court to ask for an amendment or to sustain the petition under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure ; nor did the appellants raise this plea in the petition filed for special leave or even in the statement of case as originally filed by them. After the case was argued for sometime on an observation casually made by the court, time was taken and for the first time this plea was taken in the additional statement of case filed by the appellants. This is, therefore, a highly belated attempt to convert the application filed on one basis into that on another. Further, the plea, if allowed, is not so innocuous or smooth-sailing as it appears to be, but is brimming with many controversial questions. Thus we are not justified to allow the appellants to convert their petition to one made under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure at this very late stage in view of the foregoing reasons. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1962 (3) TMI 6
  

  Whether the two sums of ₹ 1,36,903 and ₹ 2,00,625 are income of the 'previous year' ended March 31, 1948 ?

  Whether they represent an item of expenditure permissible under the provisions of section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in computing the assessee's income of that 'previous year' from its managing agency business ?

  Held that:- A mere book-keeping entry cannot be income, unless income has actually resulted, and in the present case, by the change of the terms the income which accrued and was received consisted of the lesser amounts and not the larger. This was not a gift by the assessee-firm to the managed companies. The reduction was a part of the agreement entered into by the assessee-firm to secure a long-term managing agency arrangement for the two companies which it had floated.

  Thus the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that on the facts of this case the larger income neither accrued nor was received by the assessee-firm. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1962 (3) TMI 5
  

  Whether there can be said to be a sale in the carrying on of the business in respect of the chemicals and other raw materials?

  Held that:- It is impossible to infer that the chemicals and raw materials were sold in the ordinary way of business or that the assessee-company was carrying on a trading business. The fact that the clause in the memorandum gave power to the company to sell chemicals cannot be used in this connection, because the evidence clearly shows that that clause was never used and the two sales of chemicals through the years were too petty in themselves to afford evidence of a continued or sustained trading in chemicals. In our judgment, this was a winding up sale with a view to realising the capital assets of the assessee-company and not a sale in the course of business operations, which alone would have attracted tax, if profit resulted. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1962 (3) TMI 4
  

  Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, and on a true interpretation of section 7(1) of the Indian Electricity Act and clause 9 of the Fazilka Electric Licence, 1934, the transaction, by which the Government acquired the undertaking, could be regarded as a sale within the meaning of section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act ?

  Held that:- The High Court correctly answered the question referred to it. There was a sale in the present case of the building, machinery and plant within the meaning of clause (vii) of section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1962 (3) TMI 3
  

  Adjudication - Natural justice - Penalty - Statements - Witnesses - Evidence

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ument was made by Mr. Ghose which cannot be said to be without substance. His contention is that admittedly the goods when examined by some trade organization was found to be of mixed character. Some of them were of foreign origin and some of Indian origin. Under those circumstances the confiscation of the entire goods could not be ordered and it was very difficult to separate the portion which was of illicit origin from the other goods of Indian origin. The order of confiscation on that ground also must fail. We need not go into the question as to whether it can be said that there was any evidence to hold that the petitioner was concerned in the smuggling of the goods. As we have held that the entire inquiry is vitiated as the Collector did not observe the principles of natural justice, it is not necessary to go into this question. In the result therefore, I allow this petition and quash the order of the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs dated the 13th June, 1961.

  ---

• 1962 (3) TMI 2
  

  Confiscation of smuggled goods from a person not concerned with their importation — Justified — Confiscation — Natural justice - Reasonable belief

  ---

12345