Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1969 1969 (3) 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 72 Records

• 1969 (3) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
  

  Accountal of goods - Excess and shortage of goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... artial ..but not to affidavits presented to any court or officer, not to proceedings before an arbitrator. 22.In State of Mysore and Others v. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur (AIR 1963 SC 375) the Supreme Court held that Domestic Tribunals exercising quasi judicial functions are not courts and therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. In the instant case action has been taken against the petitioner under rule 151 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, which rule empowers the excise authorities to confiscate goods and to impose fine. Proceedings of this nature are not judicial proceedings before a court and the Indian Evidence Act therefore, would not apply to them. That being so, we are not satisfied that the statutory provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act will apply. 23.For all these reasons, we find no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Warehoused goods - Tobacco - Bond

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... was brought against the petitioner previously. But all these have not been noticed by the officers in charge of supervising the petitioner s warehouse to remind them of their duty under the statute. The first lesson that a public servant in this country should be taught after independence is that they are servants and not overlords, and the Government of the country should not be lacking either in advice or in the strength to punish the real offenders who not only undermine our national character but are responsible for the drainage of public revenues. I have no doubt that the Collector who had the duty under the proviso to Rule 140 has not properly done his duty. I would therefore, direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Secretary of Finance, Government of India, for taking proper action in the matter. 6. With these observations this Rule is discharged without any order as to costs and the same order should be made in the connected Rule No. 285 (W) of 1953.

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether Customs duty was leviable on imports and exports by air?

  Whether a fraudulent evasion of the duty was punishable under Section 167(81)?

  Held that:- We do not think it necessary to express any opinion on these questions having regard to our conclusion that a fraudulent evasion of the restriction imposed by Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was punishable under Section 167(81).

  The Courts rightly held that there was a single general conspiracy embracing all the activities. Pedro had a share in the profits of the smuggling from Geneva. He got also a share of Yusuf's profits from the smuggling of the Middle East gold. Apparently Shuhaibar brothers and Lori had no share in the profits from the smuggling of the Geneva gold but they attached themselves to the general conspiracy originally devised by Yusuf and Pedro with knowledge of its scheme and purpose and took advantage of its existing organisation for obtaining finances from Kochra and Rabiyabai and for remittances of funds by Yusuf. Each conspirator profited from the general scheme and each one of them played his own part in the general conspiracy.

  The privilege was not properly claimed under Section 124. It is difficult to say that the other cable addresses and cables were communications to a public officer in official confidence. However, we find that the other addresses and cables were required in connection with investigations unconnected with the present case and did not relate to any person or persons concerned in the offences for which the appellants were being tried. The other cables and cable addresses were not relevant to the defence, and their non-disclosure has not occasioned any failure of justice.

  The defence did not produce any letter from Pedro or any other material indicating that he was willing to be examined on commission. Even his address was not given. The Court could not issue a roving commission to a Court or authority either in Switzerland or in United Kingdom or in Pakistan. The application was not made in good faith and was liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

  There was no affidavit from Ali nor was there any other material showing that his testimony was incorrect in any material particular. The Court has inherent power to recall a witness if it is satisfied that he is prepared to give evidence which is materially different from what he had given at the trial. In this case there was no material upon which the Court could be so satisfied. The learned Magistrate rightly disallowed the prayer for recalling Ali.

  Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 1966 is allowed and Maganlal Naranji Patel is acquitted of all the charges. Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1966 is also allowed and N.B. Mukherjee is acquitted of all the charges.Criminal Appeal Nos. 139 of 1966, 142 of 1966, 143 of 1966 and 144 of 1966 are allowed in part and we direct that all the sentences passed on the appellants will run concurrently.

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Gift received by Guru from his disciples - gifts was a receipt by the assessee in carrying on of his vocation as a religious teacher - taxability

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee is a resident company - sale proceeds of securities which were converted in foreign countries and remitted into India - such remittances are not taxable u/s 4(1)(b)(iii)

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Loss in the sale of shares - assessee`s general business was in jute - since memorandum of association authorised the purchase and sale of shares, loss on sales of shares did not constitute a trading loss of the assessee

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Interest paid for arrears of sugarcane cess under the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956 - amount paid u/s 3(5) of the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, for default in making the payment of cess in due time was not allowable as a deduction either u/s 10(1) or s. 10(2)(xv) of the Income Tax Act, 1922

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - petitioner has entered the land, applied for lease of the land under the rules for lease of the Govt. lands for cardamom cultivation -income derived by the assessee from the lands was not liable to agricultural income-tax

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 24 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Imposition of penalty - oral hearing by one officer cannot be of any advantage to his successor in deciding a case, therefore imposition of penalty by ITO is bad in law

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 23 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee-company - Applicability of provisions of section 23A to the dividends earned by this company

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Attachemnt of property - There is no bar in law operating upon the right of a third party whose property has been wrongly attached to straightaway file a suit in the civil Court for declaration of his rights in regard to that property - the suit was one for a declaration of their rights in an immovable property and would be governed by Art. 120 of the Limitation Act - suit of the plaintiffs, therefore, was not barred by limitation

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - If the conditions precedent to the applicability of section 271 are not satisfied in a case, although the case may otherwise come under the provisions of s. 297(2)(g) of the Act, no proceedings for the imposition of penalty can be initiated nor can penalty be imposed under the new Act

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 20 - ASSAM AND NAGALAND HIGH COURT
  

  Concealment of income for the assessment year 1961-62 - leviability of penalty - Act of 1961 - Act of 1922 - law applicable

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether a voluntary gesture on the part of an assessee to waive interest, which was admittedly payable to him by a third party and which was assesseble under " other sources ", can be treated as an admissible expenditure

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Mistake under section 24(2) - whether the ITO committed mistakes in applying of s. 24(2) can be corrected by taking action u/s 34(1)(b) - Held, yes

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Whether there are any materials on the record on which a sum of Rs. 50,000 was included in the total income of the applicant on account of the alleged understated production of yarn and soft waste - Held, no

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Compensation received by the assessee-company - receipt was for the destruction of a capital asset and was therefore of a capital nature

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  IT Act 1922 - IT Act 1961 - re-assessment made u/s 34 - validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ause (b) of section 34(1) within four years, the department is only trying to clutch at the jurisdiction under section 34(1)(a) by making these allegations. We are satisfied that there is absolutely no substance or force in any one of them and that the respondent had no valid season to believe that the petitioner had omitted or failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts, necessary for his assessments for the four years. It follows that he has no jurisdiction to make reassessments for these four years. The claim of the petitioner in these writ petitions must be upheld. In the result, the respondent is prohibited from taking any proceedings instituted by him under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the issue of notices under section 148 dated March 13, 1964, calling upon the petitioner to file return of the income for the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59. The petitioner will have his costs from the respondent, Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Levy of penalty u/s. 28(1)(c) - validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hat assumption, to arguments addressed by counsel, what the cour, decided was that notice for purposes of section 34 should go out to every divided member and not merely to the erstwhile karta. This proposition was repelled by the Supreme Court by pointing out that the position was as if the Income-tax Officer was proceeding to assess the income of the Hindu undivided family as in the relevant year during which the family existed and earned income. Apparently counsel in that case was reassured about the propriety of the assumption made there because of Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. M. N. N. Swaminathan Chettiar. We are of the viewt therefore that Lakshminarain Bhadani v. Commissioner of Income-tax does not really touch the point under consideration. It should be obvious by now that the reference should be answered against the revenue. On that view, the other aspect arising in the reference need not be answered. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1969 (3) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Gift tax - partial partion of famility - at time of partition provision was made in the name of the karta`s wife for payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000 to be expended by her at her discretion - Tribunal was right in law in holding that it was not a gift within the meaning of s. 2(xii) r/w s. 2(xxiv) of the GT Act

  ---

1234