Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1966 1966 (5) 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 21 to 31 of 31 Records

• 1966 (5) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
  

  Warehoused goods - Duty liability - Remission of duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Collector that the loss or destruction was altogether unavoidable and had taken place despite the exercise of all reasonable care and precaution on the part of a licensee or keeper of a warehouse. Nothing has been placed before me to suggest that the petitioner had adduced evidence before the Collector to establish that it had taken such reasonable care and precaution. 5.It is clear that in the absence of an order granting remission of the duty, the petitioner is liable to pay the duty demanded, and consequently no fault can be found with the enforcement of the demand against the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition must fail. 6.The respondents have raised the objection that the petitioner is not entitled to relief as it has been guilty of laches in bringing the instant petition. It is not necessary to consider the submission in view of my finding that the petition fails on its merits. The petition is dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1966 (5) TMI 10 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
  

  Alternative remedy of Civil Suit - Appeal/Revision

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the light of this view ........ I respectfully agree with the aforesaid view of the Madras High Court. It, therefore, cannot be said that the suits are barred either by Section 35 or Section 40 of the Act. 9.Learned counsel for the respondents relied on Deo Prayag v. Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R. 1961-145) and Abida Begam v. R.C. and E. Officer (A. I. R. 1959 Alld. 675) and on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bem Sarup v. Shikar Chand (1966 A. L. J. 360). There is ample support in the aforesaid decisions for the proposition that where the authority the powers conferred upon it or makes an order disregarding the conditions subject to which and the limits within which it can pass an order, the civil courts can certainly interfere. 10.I have no hesitation in holding that the Central Excise Officer had acted arbitrarily and beyond his powers in sending the notices of demand to the plaintiffs. I agree with the decision of the court below. The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1966 (5) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Claim for depreciation u/s 10(2)(vi) of the Act

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e used, in whatever sense that word is taken, at least for a part of the accounting year. If the machinery and plant have not at all been used at any time during the accounting year, no allowance can be claimed under clause (vii) in respect of them and the second proviso also does not come into operation. In our opinion, the basic concept underlying this allowance is that depreciation should result as a consequence of the machinery being actually used or employed in the earning of income. That being so, it is not material whether or not the machinery is kept ready for use so long as it is not actually used in the earning of income. That being our view, we are unable to accept the wider interpretation of the word used as given in the Bombay and Patna cases. In the view we have taken of the two questions, we answer the first question in the negative and decline to answer the second question. We direct that the assessee shall pay all costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 100.

  ---

• 1966 (5) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Contention of the petitioner is that the Commissioner should have held that the taxable income must be determined by reference to the market value of the gold patlas on the date of the partial partition of HUF - there is on averment that the contention was specifically raised before the Commissioner - therefore, petition is dissmised

  ---

• 1966 (5) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Managing director`s remuneration - remuneration was assessable as part of income of HUF and not in his individual hands

  ---

• 1966 (5) TMI 6 - ASSAM AND NAGALAND HIGH COURT
  

  Whether there was any material on the record for the basis adopted by the ITO or the Tribunal for computing the income of the assessee

  ---

• 1966 (5) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty on the assessee u/s. 28(1)(c)- There was no justification for the income-tax authorities, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to impose a penalty

  ---

• 1966 (5) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Amount received as commission and salary and as dividend income at Bhilwara, assessed as income of the HUF which accrued or arose outside the taxable territories and which were brought later or received into the taxable territories - held that amount received was rightly treated as having been received by the assessee in British India within the meaning of s. 4(1) and 14(2)(c) of the IT Act Findings

  ---

• 1966 (5) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Amount received as dividend income and as commission and salary - held that, these two items of Rs. 2,48,341 and Rs. 2,39,070 were brought into British India or received by the assessee at Ajmer within the meaning of s. 4(1) and, consequently, also within the meaning of s. 14(2)(c) of the IT Act

  ---

• 1966 (5) TMI 2 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Closing Stock - Market Value - Whether the opening stocks have been, in law, rightly taken at cost resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,09,595 on account of the revaluation of the opening stock - Held, No

  ---

• 1966 (5) TMI 1 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Individual income - Assessee contend that properties of Gopala Shetty were bequeathed under the will to the family consisting of his wife, Rama Bai, and his seven children, and that the assessment should be made on that basis

  ---

12