Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (4) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 106 of 106 Records
-
1967 (4) TMI 6
Acquisition of the undertaking of the company - company was paid Rs. 15,50,000 as compensation for loss of its undertaking, assets and documents - tribunal was justified in bringing the amount as taxable income of the company in the previous year - profits received by the company the State of Mysore is, by virtue of s. 26(2) of the IT Act, liable to be taxed.
-
1967 (4) TMI 5
Claim for exemption - assessee claimed before the WTO that it was not liable to pay wealth-tax during the year of account as it was exempted from wealth-tax u/s. 45(d) - WTO was not justified in rejecting the claim on the ground that the assessee was established within the meaning of s. 45(d) and the proviso thereto in November, 1951, and, consequently, the period of five years' exemption was over with the assessment years 1956-57 - Assessee's appeal is allowed
-
1967 (4) TMI 4
Transfer of the undertaking - Whether the workmen of the undertaking became entitled to retrenchment compensation - Held, no - amount claimed as a permissible allowance by the assessee in its profit and loss account cannot, be regarded as properly admissible either u/s. 10(1) or s. 10(2)(xv) - appeal of revenue is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside.
-
1967 (4) TMI 3
Whether the department was entitled to call upon the respondent to make good the sum as the payments did not contravene the notice u/s. 46(5A) - A person to whom the notice has been issued has only to object that the sum demanded or part thereof is not due to the assessee or that he does not hold any money on account of the assessee - Appeal of department dismissed
-
1967 (4) TMI 2
Claim for exemption from tax u/s. 15B - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 15B in respect of the donation paid to the Agastyar Trust - Held, No
-
1967 (4) TMI 1
Whether the asst. in pursuance of the notice issued u/s 34 is a valid asst. - ITO was legally justified in ignoring the 1st notice issued u/s 34 & the return filed by the assessee in response to that notice and consequently the asst. made in pursuance of the 2nd notice issued on Feb. 12, 1958, was a valid asst.- question of law referred to the H. C. should be answered in the affirmative & against the assessee - Appeal of revenue is allowed
....
|
|