Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1966 1966 (9) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 107 of 107 Records
-
1966 (9) TMI 7
Act of 1922 - Act of 1961 - ITO had no power to issue a penalty notice under s. 274 r/w s. 271 of the Act, 1961
-
1966 (9) TMI 6
Amount received as annual allowance by the assessee - since, payment of the allowance is neither casual nor of a non-recurring nature, amount received as annual allowance by the assessee was revenue income liable to tax
-
1966 (9) TMI 5
Notice Of Penalty - Service Of Notice ... ... ... ... ..... ed under section 274 of the present Act and that the requirements of that section were satisfied and that the defect in the notice, if any, would not render the penalty proceedings or the order passed in those proceedings invalid. Section 274 only requires that no penalty should be imposed without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed. That was done in this case. In response to the notice, the assessee appeared before the Income-tax Officer and made submissions. No prejudice was caused to the assessee because of any defect in the notice. We, therefore, conclude that the Tribunal was right in holding that the defect in the notice did not invalidate the imposition of the penalty. Our answer to the second question is, therefore, in the negative. The reference is answered as indicated above. The Commissioner of Income-tax, M. P., shall pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 100. Questions answered in the negative
-
1966 (9) TMI 4
Application u/s 67 of the Mysore Agrl. IT Act, 1957, for composition of the agricultural income-tax payable by him was rejected by the Agrl. ITO on the ground that he had `learnt` that the assessee had reaped and derived an income from pepper and cardamom which are plantation crops as defined by s. 2(1)(q) - held that Agrl. ITO should proceed to allow composition under s. 67 according to law
-
1966 (9) TMI 3
Whether the sum of Rs. 4,796 paid to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is an allowable deduction - Held, yes
-
1966 (9) TMI 2
Baddebt - assesse's appeal allowed ... ... ... ... ..... r. It is sufficient to state that we cannot accept the view of the Tribunal that in no event can a partner who advances moneys to a firm of which he is a partner occupy the position of a creditor or be said to carry on the business of money-lending. Having arrived at the above conclusion, the next question to be considered is whether, in the circumstances of the case, the moneys advanced by the assessee do not merely represent the capital he was bound to contribute, but constitute money-lending business. But, for answering this, there is no evidence on record. The first question referred to us, viz., whether or not the advances made by a person to a firm of which he is a partner constitute money-lending business is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The Tribunal will dispose of the case in the light of this answer. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. First question answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1966 (9) TMI 1
Amount realised by the assessee by the sale of plots - not revenue profits chargeable to income-tax
....
|
|