Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1969 1969 (3) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 72 of 72 Records
-
1969 (3) TMI 12 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Competency of latter ITO to amend the amount of tax demand - income-tax file of petitioner transferred to other officer - SC set aside the order of transfer - ITO started certificate proceeding for recovery of tax - case filed against transfer to ITO of another district - held that latter officer can amend the amount of tax demand
-
1969 (3) TMI 11 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
Partnership - validity - entitlement to registration under s. 185 of IT Act, 1961 ... ... ... ... ..... rested only on its finding on a question of law. So, in that situation it is not disputed that all that we can say in this reference is that the appeal has not been properly disposed of by the Tribunal and that that appeal has now to be disposed of afresh by it as explained by the Supreme Court in Esthuri Aswathiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, after recording a finding on the question whether the partnership is a genuine partnership. The Tribunal should now dispose of the appeal in that way and in accordance with the view expressed by us on the question of law as to the legality of the partnership entered into between the partners. We do not think that we should, as suggested by Mr. Rajasekhara Murthy, appearing for the department, leave open the question as to the legality of the partnership, since on the question we have reached a clear conclusion that there is no legal prohibition to the creation of a partnership like the one upon which the assessees depended. No costs.
-
1969 (3) TMI 10 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Company paid Rs. 6 lakh to managing agent as compensation for premature termination of managing agency - payment of Rs. 6 lakhs was only a capital expenditure and therefore, not a permissible deduction u/s 10(2)(xv)
-
1969 (3) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Whether the total value of gifts was liable to estate duty - no ... ... ... ... ..... not referable to the gift, that is to say, the gift was of the property less the right which belonged to the partnership. Mr. Balasubrahmanyan invited our attention to George Da Costa v. Controller of Estate Duty and contended that for the purposes of exclusion the factual position should be kept in view and if, as a matter of fact, the donor is in some way associated with or found to enjoy the benefit out of or in relation to the gift, that would attract the application of section 10. But, as we pointed out, it would all depend upon what the subject-matter of the gift is. If the subject-matter of the gift is exclusive of what is regarded by the revenue as benefit or association, no question of exclusion can arise at all. In that case, the matter will have to be decided only on the basis of the subject-matter of the gift. We are of the view that the question referred to us should be answered against the revenue and it is accordingly answered with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1969 (3) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Whether the value of right to possession and enjoyment in hand of deceased as a lessee would pass on his death and would attract duty - Held, yes
-
1969 (3) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - liability to pay gift tax ... ... ... ... ..... will not cover the case of distribution such as is involved in this reference. We are also not concerned with the question of the property and the manner of valuation. Bat we must observe, on the view we have taken on the question under reference, that the transfer we have held to be a gift here, cannot be regarded as of a share in the goodwill of the firm. It will follow that the revenue will have to re-value the gift. But in that connection we do not propose to indicate our own view as to how it should be valued. It is, however, necessary to point out that section 6(3) contemplates rules to be prescribed for valuing a property which cannot be estimated under sub-section (1) of that section. In the absence of any rule framed, section 6(3) may really serve no purpose. But as we are not in the present reference concerned with the valuation, we refrain from expressing any final opinion on the question. We answer the question in the reference in favour of the revenue. No costs.
-
1969 (3) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Officer rectified an order passed under section 23A - held that Income Tax Officer was not justified - Assessing Officer under section 35 can only rectify an order of assessment and order passed under section 23A not being an order of assessment, the same cannot be rectified
-
1969 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Appellant was a non-resident company engaged in shipping business - assessee did not furnish particulars of its world income - appellant was not entitled to additional depreciation - Assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1969 (3) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Garnishee Order - Whether the payment made by the Collector of Customs can be certified under Order 21, r. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Held, Yes - if the payment has been legally made out of court in full and final discharge of the liability under a decree, there is no reason why the judgment debtor cannot move the court for getting the adjustment or payment certified - appeal allowed
-
1969 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Appellant claimed to be assessed in the status of a HUF inasmuch as the wealth returned consisted of ancestral property received or deemed to have been received by him on partition with his father and brothers - held that the status of the appellant was rightly determined as that of a Hindu undivided family by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the question of law referred to the High Court must be answered in the affirmative - Assessee's appeal is allowed
-
1969 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Firm which carried on the business was dissolved - Sec. 44 of IT Act, 1922 applies only in case of discontinuance of business and not to cases in which the business continued after reconstitution of firm or there was succession of business - Revenue's appeal dismissed
-
1969 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Firm - share income - expenses incurred by the assessee (who was not carrying on any independent business of his own), in earning income from various firms in which he was a partner, were allowable in law as deductions - Revenue appeal dismissed
|
|