Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1970 1970 (2) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 119 Records
-
1970 (2) TMI 41
Assessee cultivated sugarcane on his lands - sale proceeds from jaggery - Whetherthere was any evidence before the Tribunal to justify the finding that there was no market for sugarcane produced by the assessee - Whether the income received by the assessee was agricultural income within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922
-
1970 (2) TMI 40
Expenditure incurred for the preservation of the entire business as an entity and for defending against a claim of hostile title or against nationalisation - deductible under section 10(2)(xv)
-
1970 (2) TMI 39
Sale of the right to the new rights issue shares - company offered its existing shareholders for subscription one new share of the rights issue for every five existing old shares - depreciation in the value of existing shares - set off
-
1970 (2) TMI 38
Assessment - status - karta of HUF became partner in firm - assessability of share income -individual income or income of branch of Hindu Undivided Family
-
1970 (2) TMI 37
Non-resident shipping company - freight charges for goods unloaded at an Indian port - whether liable to Income tax - deduction of tax as per section 195
-
1970 (2) TMI 36
Assessee who remits tax as agent of non-resident, not realised the amont of tax from non-resident - claim for deduction as bad debt or loss incidental to the business of the assessee u/s 10(1) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
-
1970 (2) TMI 35
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Notice for reassessment - limitation ... ... ... ... ..... be computed from June 27, 1963, the date on which assessment under section 58 of the Act was made by the Assistant Controller and from the date on which the appeal was disposed of. It then follows that the impugned notice is clearly barred by time and that the 1st respondent is, therefore, not entitled to commence proceedings against the petitioner for reassessment under section 59 of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied that the notice GIR 130-r/ 7-2-68 is not valid having been issued beyond three years from the date of the assessment made at the inception under section 58 of the Act and that the 1st respondent is, therefore, not entitled to proceed with any enquiry for reassessment in pursuance of that notice. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs and a writ of prohibition restraining the 1st respondent from proceeding with the enquiry in pursuance of his notice GIR 130-r/ 7-2-68 will issue as prayed for by the petitioner. Advocate s fee Rs. 150.
-
1970 (2) TMI 34
Whether the sums were rightly treated as dividends paid to the two shareholders by the assessee-company within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) - section 2(6A)(e) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 indicates that loans advanced to shareholders can decide to be dividends only if an assessee-company is found to be in possession of "accumulated profit" at the relevant dates - commercial profits accumulated by the company cannot be ascertained without considering all and singular the disbursements made and expenditure actually incurred
-
1970 (2) TMI 33
Adventure in the nature of trade - exemption under section 4(3)(vii) ... ... ... ... ..... erely on the whim or the caprice of the company. The assessee had a powerful weapon in his hands by which he could force the company to make payment to him to his satisfaction. He was the legal owner of Dandekar s claim. He could file a suit or other litigation against the company. He knew, when he acquired this claim, that the company was reluctant to face a litigation and that because of that reason the company would be agreeable to settle the claim for an amount not exceeding Rs. 2,25,000. There was, therefore, nothing unanticipated in this receipt. It was a calculated move on the part of the see made with the intention of making a profit. What was unforeseen was only the exact quantum which he would earn in the transaction. For these reasons, we hold that the receipt of the sum of Rs. 85,000 by the assessee was not of a casual nature, although it was of a non-recurring nature. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative. The assessee to pay the respondent s costs.
-
1970 (2) TMI 32
Amount paid as gratuity - allowability - gratuity was not deductible as it was not shown as a debit in the assessee's books for the relevant year
-
1970 (2) TMI 31
Assessee is a limited liability company to which the provisions of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were admmittedly applicable - whether capital gains should be taken into consideration in determining whether a company's profits were sufficient to declare dividends
-
1970 (2) TMI 30
Shares purchased with money raised by pledging and selling jewellery were sold at profit - transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade - therefore, the profit from the sale of shares were business profits
-
1970 (2) TMI 29
Reference to HC - when question of jurisdiction was not raised before the Tribunal, whether the High Court can direct reference on the issue
-
1970 (2) TMI 28
Whether proceedings for the imposition of penalty have been commenced validly and within the time limit, if any, prescribed by the Income-tax Act, 1961 - held that Section 275 does not prescribe any requirements regarding the commencement proceedings for levy of penalty
-
1970 (2) TMI 27
Assessee claimed deduction for a sum of Rs. 1,233 paid as penalty to the Government of Orissa for supplying inferior quality of paddy and rice - penalty paid cannot be claimed as deduction under section 10(2)(xv) but can be claimed under section 10(1)
-
1970 (2) TMI 26
Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 - election expenditure of a political leader - amounts paid by way of cheques to the party officials - exemption may be claimed
-
1970 (2) TMI 25
Whether the inference of the Tribunal that remittances to the U. K. came out of the profits earned in India and that the bank overdraft in India had in fact been utilised in carrying on the assessee's business was sustainable in law - Held, yes - hence, tribunal was correct in holding that the department was not justified in disallowing the interest paid by the assessee
-
1970 (2) TMI 24
Assets sold by firm on which depreciation has been allowed - changes in the constitution of the firm - whether assessment of excess over written down value is permissible - there was no cesser of business or change in the unit, therefore, the assessee was liable to be assessed under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) in respect of the depreciation allowed
-
1970 (2) TMI 23
Whether the sum paid by the assessee to secure a pension to the director on his retirement is a permissible deduction in the computation of the assessee's business income - it was a liability incurred before the date of employee's retirement - incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business - deductible as business expenditure
-
1970 (2) TMI 22
Allegation that returned income was lesser than the assessed income - Explanation to section 271(1) creates a presumption in certain circumstances to the effect that the assessee will be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income - it cannot be said that said Explanation violates the article 14 of the Constitution - question about the validity of the SCN can be raised in the appeal permitted under the statute itself before the appellate authority
|
|