Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1965 1965 (2) 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 61 to 70 of 70 Records

• 1965 (2) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
  

  Winding up - Dissolution of company

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ts till that time. The profit of rupees three lakhs and odd in question have all been earned by the liquidator during the liquidation of the company. All this profit is not dividend and nothing can be deducted at source by the liquidator under section 194 of the Act. The liquidator was in error in making the deduction at the rate of 30 from the second dividend. Sri Deoki Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not press the second part of the prayer. He stated that his client will take appropriate proceedings before the Income-tax Officer for refund as the deducted income-tax has already been paid by the liquidator to the department. It is, therefore, not necessary to make any direction in respect of the deduction already made from the second dividend. The official liquidator is directed not to deduct anything by way of income-tax or super-tax from the dividends that are to be declared and distributed in respect of this company. The parties shall bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1965 (2) TMI 30 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
  

  Powers of Court to rectify register of members

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... . 476, P. B. Mukharji J. held ...disputed questions of fact should not be tried in a summary procedure in an application for rectification of the share register under section 155 because they are more appropriate subjects for a trial in a suit on evidence after a full discovery of documents and inspection. I have indicated above that several disputed questions of fact require determination in this case. The petitioner s title to the shares is itself seriously disputed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the power conferred on this court under section 155. The petition is, from this point of view, not maintainable. Issue No. 4 is decided against the petitioner. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to decide the other issues. The petitioner will be at liberty to take such steps in the civil court as he may be advised to do. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Under the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1965 (2) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of ₹ 12,68,460, ₹ 4,40,878 and ₹ 6,71,735, or any them, which represents receipts by the assessee-company of its sale proceeds in British India, include any portion of its income in British India ?

  Held that:- Having carefully weighed the pros and cons of the controversy which have been pressed before us on the present occasion, we are not satisfied that a case has been made out to review and revise our decisions in the case of the New Jehangir Mills [1959 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court] and the case of the Petlad Co. Ltd.[1962 (11) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT] That is why we think that the contention raised by Mr. Palkhivala must be upheld. In the result, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is sent back to the High Court with a direction that the High Court s

  ---

• 1965 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether Zamindari Abolition Compensation Bonds issued by the U. P. Government to intermediaries in payment of compensation payable on the basis of their rights under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 have to be accepted by the appropriate authorities in payment of the agricultural income-tax due from them?

  Held that:- The fact that the bonds are negotiable does not make them legal tender and does not make it obligatory on anyone, including Government, to accept them in payment of any dues. When the compensation payable to an intermediary has been paid in the form of cash or bonds, that compensation ceases to be payable. Section 6(4) of the Act and rule 8-A of the rules do not, as already stated, provide for the receipt of agricultural income-tax in the form of bonds.

  We are therefore of opinion that the Collector cannot be said to be in error in not accepting the bonds which had been delivered and which were not even cashable at the time, in payment of the arrears of agricultural income-tax payable under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. Allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and restore that of the Collector dated August 24, 1956

  ---

• 1965 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the constitutional validity of section 2(6A)(d) Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 can be supported on the ground that it was enacted to prevent evasion of income-tax?

  Whether the said dividends were distributed in the year 1953-54, as the appellant contends, or in the accounting year 1954-55, as the respondent argues?

  Held that:- When there is a factual avoidance of tax, in terms of law, the legislature steps in to amend the income-tax law so that it can catch such an income within the net of taxation. There is, therefore, no inconsistency between a receipt being a capital one under the company law, and by fiction being treated as taxable income under the Income-tax Act.Therefore, as section 2(6A)(d) of the Act embodies a law to prevent evasion of tax, it falls within the ken of entry 54 of List I of Schedule VII to the Government of India Act, 1935.

  We agree with the High Court that the dividends were distributed to the shareholders during the accounting year, i. e., 1954-55. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1965 (2) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Sum received by the assessee in consideration of consenting to the assignment of lease by M Ltd., in favour of B Ltd., is not a revenue receipt - Where the source of a sum of money is proved, the question of taxability depends on a consideration of all the circumstances of the case

  ---

• 1965 (2) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the customs rebate received by the assessee was liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee - Whether there is any evidence on the record to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the customs rebate was not received by the assessee on behalf of a third party and it was a revenue receipt of the assessee

  ---

• 1965 (2) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the bonus shares of the face value of Rs. 50,07,500 should be included in the paid-up capital of the assessee within the meaning of that term in pursuance of sub-section (1) of the Explanation to Paragraph D of Part II of the Finance Act, 1956, for the relevant assessment year - Held, no

  ---

• 1965 (2) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Inclusion in the assessable income of the receipts on account of the coffee crop delivered to the Coffee Board prior to April 1, 1954 - held that expenditure incurred before the 1st April, 1954 cannot be deducted under section 5 of the Act

  ---

• 1965 (2) TMI 1 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
  

  Prayer, for quashing the noticesissued to the petitioner under section 23(2) - petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from taking any steps in pursuance of the aforesaid notices or making any orders for assessment in pursuance thereof.

  ---

1234