Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1966 1966 (1) 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 61 Records

• 1966 (1) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee-company is entitled to a deduction of ₹ 12,873 being the wealth-tax paid during the account year ended February 29, 1960, against the profits and gains of its business for the assessment year 1960-61 under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?

  Held that:- In the light of the principles the amount of tax paid on the net wealth of an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act is not a permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act in his assessment to income-tax, for tax is imposed under the Wealth-tax Act on the owner of assets and not on any commercial activity. The charge of the tax is the same, whether the assets are part of or used in the trading Organisation of the owner or are merely owned by him. The assets of the taxpayer, incorporated or not, become chargeable to tax because they are owned by him, and not because they are used by him in the business. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT
  

  whether there was a sub-partnership between the members of the Ferozepore firm in respect of the share of Gosain Chander Bhan is not material because assuming that there was no sub-partnership, the members of the Ferozepore firm did not become partners in the assessee-firm by virtue of the relevant clause in the deed dated June 14, 1952, or otherwise. We are, therefore, satisfied that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal.

  Counsel for the appellant submitted that as a question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal, the High Court was bound to call for a statement of case. We are not inclined to accept this contention. Where, as in this case, the question of law is not substantial and the answer to the question is self-evident, the High Court is not bound to require the Tribunal to refer the question. In our opinion, the High Court in the exercise of its discretion under section 66(2) rightly rejected the appellant's application. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether an order cancelling the certificate of renewal of registration made under section 26A of the Act by an Income-tax Officer is subject to an appeal under section 30(1) to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner?

  Held that:- Under section 23(4) while the Income-tax Officer can make an order refusing to register a firm or may cancel the registration if it is already registered, under section 26A(2) he can only make an order in such manner as may be prescribed. The manner prescribed, as we have already indicated earlier, provides for three different kinds of orders to be made in the same application with the result that an order of refusal to renew a certificate and the order cancelling the certificate renewed are given the same effect, namely, refusal of the application to register. That apart, when section 30 provides for an appeal against the orders under section 23(4) and also against orders under section 26A, it has incorporated the two forms of orders embodied in section 23(4) and used a general word in providing an appeal against an order under section 26A, for the nature of the order is not described but left to be prescribed under the rules.

  If so, it follows that the words " refusal to register a firm " in section 30 of the Act are wide enough to take in the orders made under rules 6A and 6B refusing to renew the registration and also cancelling the certificate so renewed. The question propounded for the High Court's decision in the affirmative. The order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the unregistered firm was proper and legal, the two partners of this partnership having been assessed in respect of their shares of income from this partnership business ?

  Held that:- A survey of the contentions raised before the departmental authorities, the Tribunal and the High Court makes that inference irresistible. The Income-tax Officer who made the assessment under challenge did not state that when the first assessment was made, the facts which had a bearing on the true relationship between the three parties were not placed, and it was not even argued before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal that those facts were not placed before the Income-tax Officer. Thus once the option is exercised for assessing the individual partner and including his share of profits in the firm in his assessment, it is not open to the department to assess the same income as income of the unregistered firm. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
  

  Remission of Duty on warehoused goods - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Appeal - Pre-deposit of duty

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 16 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the profit of Rs. 14,30,561 on jute transactions were the profits of the assessee-company liable to be included in its total income

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Computation of business profits - bad debt - debt was incidental to the business of the assessee within the meaning of section 10(2)(xi) - hence allowable as a deduction

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 14 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Delay in filing appeal - Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay in depositing the prescribed fee for the appeal

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Trust - there was no trust in the technical or in the English sense in favour of the deity but there was a dedication of the properties to the deity - such dedication may be considered to be a trust in the larger sense

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 12 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Reopening of assessment under section 34(1) - notice u/s 34 of the IT Act, 1922 for the asst. yr. 1952-53 and the consequent inclusion of the deemed dividend income in the assessee's assessment for 1952-53 were not valid

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 11 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Reopening of assessment under section 34(1) - notice u/s 34 of the IT Act, 1922 for the asst. yr. 1952-53 and the consequent inclusion of the deemed dividend income in the assessee's assessment for 1952-53 were not valid

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 10 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Business of buying and selling shares - Whether the loss arising on the sale of shares was an admissible deduction as a loss arising in the course of the assessee's business of dealing in shares

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Purchase and sale of shares - Whether the ITO had travelled beyond the material existing on the record

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 8 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Determination of net wealth - aggregate value of debts owed - agricultural income - Right To Receive Compensation - Valuation Date

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 7 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Nature of expenditure - revenue/capital - loss on sale of share - litigation expenses - loss in speculation

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 6 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the benefits not convertible into money received by the assessee as a shareholder of a company, Ashok Marketing Ltd., will be assessable during the two years as income chargeable u/s 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 - held that value of the benefits received by the assessee from the A Ltd., which were not convertible into money, did not constitute "income" chargeable u/s 12

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 5 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Arrest and detention for recovery of tax - Where the taxes assessed under the Travancore IT Act, 1121, the assessee is not liable to be arrested or detained in civil prison for non-payment and that his arrest and detention are illegal

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Two owners can not be assessed as an `association of individuals' on the income of the entire area under their joint cultivation - lands of the two leases could not be said to have been owned by the association of the two persons within the meaning of s. 2(11)

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  receipts by way of Commission/rebate on purchase of petrol/diesel and proceeds of sales of tyres, tubes and empty barrels in a transport business constitute income - payment of tips/mamools in transport business is deductible in computing the income - they were held to be allowable

  ---

• 1966 (1) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - order determining and quantifying liability of the firm u/s. 187 - held thattax assessed on a partner can not be recovered from the firm without an order determining and quantifying the liability of the firm

  ---

1234