Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (8) 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 80 Records

• 1967 (8) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Memorandum and articles of association – Registration of, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
  

  Winding up – Powers of tribunal on hearing petition

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... not to proceed with the sale. I do not see how the unsecured creditors of the company would be affected by a sale by a secured creditor who chooses to rely on his own security. It would be for the Maharashtra State Finance Corporation itself to consider whether it should not accede to the request of the petitioners and other creditors not to proceed with the sale, but to come in the liquidation proceedings later on, in the event of a winding-up order being ultimately passed. That, however, is a matter which should not come in the way of my granting an adjournment of the petition to-day. In the result, I grant an adjournment of this petition to the 9th of October 1967, on the company giving an undertaking, through counsel, not to deal with or dispose of any of its assets in the meantime, and also giving an undertaking to the court to call a meeting of the creditors within three weeks from to-day. The company should pay the petitioner s costs of the adjournment fixed at Rs. 75.

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Winding up - Power of court to appoint and remove liquidator

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ary liquidator, then, unless there are compelling reasons to set at naught the bona fide decision so arrived at legitimately in exercise of their right of self-determination, courts ought not to remove a liquidator so appointed. A bare suspicion, a mere complaint and a suspicious retrospect of past events, by themselves cannot be accepted as sufficient within the meaning of the expression on cause shown in section 515 of the Companies Act and courts will not encourage the vindication and ventilation of party feelings to achieve an object and to serve their ends. I am satisfied that, as matters stand, there are no justifiable reasons for me to hold that the 2nd respondent is a person who is unfit to be a voluntary liquidation of the Nidhi. I am also not satisfied that in the interests of the liquidation, he should be removed. Company Application No. 120 of 1967 is therefore dismissed but there will be no order at to costs. Company Application No. 121 of 1967 is also dismissed.

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether sub-section (4) of section 41 of the Act can be upheld read along with the second proviso thereof?

  Whether sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 41 of the Act which have been struck down by the High Court on the ground that they are unreasonable restrictions on the right to hold property and to carry on trade have been correctly struck down?

  Held that:- Clearly it is clause (a) in the proviso which under the circumstances must fall, for we cannot hold that the entire Act must fall because of this inconsistency with respect to recovery of tax under clause (a) of the second proviso even before the taxable event occurs in the large majority of cases which would be covered by the Act. We are therefore of opinion that clause (a) of the second proviso being repugnant to the entire scheme of the Act, in so far as it provides for recovery of tax even before the first sale in the State, which is the point of time in a large majority of cases for recovery of tax, must fall on the ground of repugnancy.

  Considering the fact that the legislature added this cornpulsory proviso later, it is clear that the legislature intended that the main part of the section and the second proviso should go together. It is difficult to hold therefore that after the introduction of the second proviso in 1961, the legislature could have intended that the main part of sub-section (4) should stand by itself. We are therefore of opinion that sub-section (4) with the two provisos must fall on this narrow ground. We therefore agree with the High Court and strike down sub-section (4) but for reasons different from those which commended themselves to the High Court.

  Cannot agree with the High Court that sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 41 of the Act are unreasonable restrictions on the right to hold property or carry on trade for reasons indicated. We are of opinion that they are reasonable restrictions which are protected by clauses (5) and (6) of article 19 of the Constitution. Thus the final order of the High Court allowing the writ petitions must stand, though we do not agree with the interpretation of the High Court with respect to sub-section (2) and the finding of the High Court that sub-sections (2) and (3) are unconstitutional on the ground of their being unreasonable restrictions on the right to hold property and to carry on trade. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 36 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 - Expenditure of wife and minor child of assessee out of their separate income - includibility in assessee`s expenditure - held that since the assessee`s wife and minor children had properties of their own, the assessment of their expenditure in the assessee`s hands was not justified

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - assessment to estate duty on the estate passing on the death - gift by deceased - Whether valid gifts were made by the deceased by merely effecting transfer credit entries in the books of the firm - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Capital loss suffered by the assessee on account of depreciation in the value of the shares of E - If the loss was a capital loss then the Tribunals' decision that it would be unreasonable for the assessee-company to have declared any dividend was correct

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the provision made for tax payable under section 23A where no order under section 23A had been passed before the valuation date is an allowable deduction in the computation of the net wealth - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Writ Petition filed by the petitioners for the issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order or direction prohibiting ITO and the ITO from proceeding with his proposals to reopen the petitioner`s assessments - held that assessment proceedings before the ITO are quasi judicial in nature and while making assessments the ITO has solely to be guided by the provisions of law - he cannot avail of any instruction given by his higher authorities including the CBDT for making a particular assessment

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Computation of the net wealth - arrears of tax payable to department - Initial Depreciation - deductibility

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - rebate on insurance premium - on noticing that the rebate was wrongly allowed in view of the second proviso to s. 10(e)(i) of the Act, the Agrl. ITO initiated proceedings u/s 35 and revised the assessment - held that improper allowance of rebate of insurance premium can be revoked by resort to s. 35 of the Travancore-Cochin Agrl. IT Act, 1950

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  ITO applied rate of 18% of profit instead of 10% - Petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for (i) writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or otherwise directing the respondents to revise the assessment order or directing the respondents to refund - held that there must be an order passed by a competent authority by virtue of his statutory powers to the effect that refund was due to the assessee

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Travancore Income Tax Act - section 41 - section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950, the law relating to income-tax in operation in Part B States ceased to have effect except for purposes of levy, assessment and collection of income-tax and super-tax in respect of any period not included in the previous year - effect of s. 13 of the Finance Act, 1950, was not to repeal s. 41(1) - since extended period of limitation, eight years, was still available even after April 1, 1950, hence, assessments made for the years 1122 to 1124 (Malayalam) on July 12, 1955, and July 29, 1955, are within time

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 27 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee claimed development rebate under s. 10(2)(vib) of the IT Act, 1922 - sanitary fittings and pipelines installed in the King Kothi branch of the hotel constituted `plant` within the meaning of s. 10(5) of the Act, and hence assessee is entitled to development rebate

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Loss on sale of shares - whether capital loss or revenue loss

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... om the admitted facts the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has drawn the conclusion that these shares were acquired in connection with the acquisition or retention of the managing agency of Messrs. Karamchand Thapar and Sons Ltd. We have already rejected Mr. Deb s argument that such an inference was based on no material or was perverse. If the purpose of the acquisition of the shares was to facilitate the acquisition or retention of the managing agency and if these shares had been held by the assessee for a long period of 14 years without sale, then the conclusion that the shares did not constitute the assessee s stock-in-trade in its shares dealing business could not be held to be unreasonable or perverse. In our opinion, the Tribunal s decision was correct and the question referred must be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax is entitled to the costs of this reference. BANERJEE J.-I agree. Question answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether any portion of the salary of a partner in a registered firm which carried on business of a tea plantation should be construed as his agricultural income - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Company declared dividends after the lapse of the statutory period of 12 months from the end of each of the relevant previous years - profits of the assessee-company for the assessment years were small within the meaning of the expression `smallness of profits` in section 23A - therefore, further declaration of dividend than that declared by the assessee would be unreasonable

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 23 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee is a private limited company - remuneration paid to its managing director - excess remuneration - held that excess remuneration paid was wholly and exclusively expended by it for the purposes of its business and was, hence, a deductible allowance within the meaning of s. 10(2)(xv)

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Interest of the assessee in the corpus - It is contingent interest and not a vested interest

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n the assessee surviving the settlor while the gift-over is contingent not only upon the assessee dying during the lifetime of the settlor but there is also an additional contingency, namely, that Ramniklal should be alive at the date of death of the settlor. Different contingencies are, therefore, attached to the prior gift and the gift-over, and the gift-over does not fit in with the prior gift. The rule in Phipps v. Ackers cannot, therefore, apply to the facts of the present case even if this rule were otherwise applicable in the construction of Indian settlements and wills. We must, therefore, reach the conclusion that the interest of the assessee in the corpus under the trust deed was a contingent interest and not a vested interest. Our answers to the questions reframed by us, therefore, are Question No. 1 In the affirmative and Question No. 2 The assessee had contingent interest and not vested interest in the corpus. There will be no order as to costs of the reference.

  ---

• 1967 (8) TMI 21 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer - there was a complete acquisition of the right to recover the accumulated interest on the amount awarded by the Officer when possession was taken, and on the enhancement, when the appropriate decree made such enhancement and to subsequent interest so long as it ran but was not paid - Tribunal was right in holding that the entire interest was not assessable

  ---

1234