Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1964 1964 (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 88 of 88 Records

• 1964 (3) TMI 8 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Seized goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... difference of fine if such a fine ultimately imposed by the adjudicating authority was in excess of the sums already collected from him. By reason of this undertaking the petitioner would be entitled to possession of the goods till an order adverse to him is passed. What all the department can demand from the petitioner is only the payment of the fine in lieu of confiscation. I cannot understand how when this specific undertaking has already been recorded, the department can now demand that the goods should be returned to the department or their value estimated at Rs. 300 should be deposited. 5.The goods were released on a proper undertaking and it is not open to the department to make a demand of this description pending final order upon the matter. In this view, a writ of prohibition will issue. It will be open to the department to enforce either the undertaking or the security bond whichever is available for their purpose in due course. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1964 (3) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Writ jurisdiction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... annot be asked to go into facts again. Lastly it was contended that the first warrant issued in the name of Mr. J.N. Gaur had exhausted itself after the search of House No. 15 and thereafter the search was carried out by the police under the Arms Act and the seizure of gold by the police could not attract Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act. There is no trace of such a point in the petition and it appears to have been raised for the first time in this appeal perhaps because the other points mentioned earlier stand concluded against the appellant by several decisions of this Court. The point now sought to be raised is not one on which an affidavit by the opposite side would not have been necessary if the High Court had considered it good and allowed it to be taken to trial. We cannot allow this new point to be raised because to do so would be to hear the appeal on a point which the High Court was not even called upon to consider. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

  ---

• 1964 (3) TMI 6 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
  

  Manufacturer - Connotation of - Constitution - Alternate remedy - Existence of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tory is oil manufactured by the factory and the factory is liable to pay excise duty thereon. If it is the owner of the factory which manufactures the oil who is to be treated as the manufacturer of the oil, it follows that the person who supplies the oilseeds cannot be the manufacturer. This strengthens the conclusion to which I have already arrived that the petitioner is not the manufacturer in respect of the vegetable non-essential oils manufactured by the other oil mills out of oilseeds supplied by it. 7. The petitioner not being the manufacturer was not liable to be assessed to excise duty on the oil in dispute and accordingly the demand notices and the order of detention of the oil were illegal. In the result 1 allow the writ petition, quash the demand notices and the order of detention and direct the respondents not to recover the excise duty from the petitioner in pursuance of the said demand notices. The petitioner will be entitled to its costs from the respondents.

  ---

• 1964 (3) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Income from the building called 'fort' is agricultural income within the meaning of s. 2(1)(c) of the IT Act and accordingly exempt

  ---

• 1964 (3) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Set up a cement factory as a separate unit - factory was actually set up and was ready for production in Feb., 1958 - Meanwhile, the Act came into force on April 1, 1957 - Taking advantage of the Act, the assessee claimed exemption for the three assessment years - assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)

  ---

• 1964 (3) TMI 3 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Setting up of plant - Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1) of the WT Act for the three asst. yrs. 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 - Held, Yes

  ---

• 1964 (3) TMI 2 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Search - extent of the seizure was far beyond the limits of section 132 - action was mala fide in the sense that there was abuse of power conferred on the ITO by s. 132 of the Act - since the act being mala fide, the proceedings should be quashed by court by issuing a writ of mandamus

  ---

• 1964 (3) TMI 1 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
  

  Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer to reopen the assessment which had become final

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Court, and so far as it is concerned, the authority of the Supreme Court in Atmala Nagaraj s case holds the field, and as it is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, it must be held that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction on the facts as mentioned above to reopen on the basis of his notice under section 35(5) of the Act the assessment on the assessee, which had already been finalised before the 1st April, 1952. This argument, in our view, is unanswerable and it must, therefore, be held that the enhanced assessment in the order dated the 16th October, 1958, of the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of the notice issued under sub-section (5) of section 35 of the Act is without jurisdiction and of no effect. This order and, in consequence, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated the 7th May, 1962, are quashed by a writ of certiorari. As the legal question involved in this case is not free from difficulty, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

  ---

12345