Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1971 1971 (2) 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 61 to 80 of 106 Records

• 1971 (2) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
  

  Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... is inevitable that the High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction in relation to the suit, stay it leaving the parties to have their dispute adjudicated upon by the private forum provided under the arbitration agreement. When an award is made in the arbitration proceeding, the court would pass a decree in the suit in terms of the award and dispose it of. We are, therefore, of the view that Mr. Justice J.B. Mehta was not right in rejecting the application of the appellant for stay of the suit on the ground that the arbitration agreement was excluded by the provisions of section 446, sub-section (2). We, accordingly, set aside the order made by Mr. Justice J.B. Mehta and remand the application for stay for disposal on merits. The learned judge who hears the application for stay on remand will consider whether this is a fit and proper case for granting stay under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondents will pay the costs of the appeal to the appellant.

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
  

  Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ons of Miabhoy J., the present petition was filed. Therefore, prima facie, there is no such delay which would substantiate the plea of laches being advanced against the petitioners. Nothing is shown at this stage as to how the respondents had prejudiced themselves. In any event, while exercising equitable jurisdiction, if proper grounds are made out so as to attract section 633, the court would give relief. Some of the respondents tried to urge that, after so many years, the evidence might not be preserved by them. If any such prejudice, which is now sought to be imagined, is made out, the court ultimately would not be helpless when it would exercise its discretionary jurisdiction so that justice would properly be done in the matter. In any event, this would not be aground to be urged in the present case as a bar in limine for disposal of the petition. As a result of this discussion, these issues are decided against the respondents and the petition is held to be maintainable.

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Evidence - Smuggling case - Statements, inconsistent

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Mustafa and these acts fall clearly within the scope of clause (b) of Section 112 making them liable for the consequences enumerated therein. Likewise, Pathar, who was responsible for the carrying of the goods, on his own showing, was equally liable for the same consequences. They were thus in the position of accomplices and the respondent erred in relying upon those statements which were recorded behind the back of the petitioner, who had no opportunity to cross-examine them. 6.All that has been established in the case was possession of the goods by the petitioner. If the petitioner had been found guilty of possessing the goods, knowing or having reason to believe them to be liable for confiscation, the position would be different. But, without any material whatsoever, the respondent found the petitioner as being concerned in the illicit import of the goods. This order is vitiated and is unsustainable. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 43 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Revision - Natural justice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... pears further that the Central Government have passed the order in fact without giving reasons whatsoever why this was rejected. It has now been held by the Supreme Court that a quasi-judicial tribunal must give some reasons so that if an appeal is taken or revisional application moved before competent authorities they may know the mind of the authority concerned why the impugned order has been made. If no such reasons are given the order being laconic cannot be sustained (vide M/s. Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India) decided on 28-10-1969 in C.A. 2252 of 1966 (S.C.). On this limited ground this Rule must be made absolute. The order of the Central Government insofar as it rejects the petitioner s revisional application under section 131 must be set aside and the said authority dispose of the said application in accordance with law. The Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. This judgment will govern C. R. 3317(W) of 1966.

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Detention Certificate - Export Promotion Scheme

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Authorities. I have already observed that the right to detain the goods for customs examination is interlaced with the public duty to issue a detention certificate, if ultimately it is found that the importer has not violated any of the conditions of the licence. As it happens, the petitioner did import the goods in accordance with the licence. The order of the Central Board ex facie does not say that they were imposing a warning on the petitioner. The interpretation put upon the order of the Central Board by the Collector is erroneous. In this state of events, the petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Mandamus as prayed for. The Rule NISI in W.P. 1486/70 is made absolute in so far as the Collector of Customs is concerned. In other respects, the rule is discharged. W.P. No. 1484 of 1970 is allowed. In both these petitions, there will be no order as to cost. The detention certificate will be issued within fifteen days from this date or upto the date of issue, whichever is later.

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Seizure — Judicial function and administrative function — Writ jurisdiction — Writ of certiorari — Scope

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Trading Loss

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business . Assuming that what was paid to Mrs. Messaffi was interest and not an amount in lieu of interest , the interest was not paid in respect of any amount borrowed from Mrs. Messaffi. For these reasons, our answer to the first question is that in computing the assessee s business income of the year 1957, relevant for the assesssment year 1958-59, the sum of Rs. 9 lakhs is an admissible deduction under section 10(1) but not under section 10(2)(xi) or under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Our answer to the second question is in the negative. Our answer to the third question is that, with regard to the assessment year 1959-60, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 8,000 was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the company. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference, including the costs of the notice of motion.

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 39 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Accounting Year, Accumulated Profits, Substantially Interested

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... maximum of 50 of the tax in the aggregate. We find support for our view in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Venichand Maganlal. We, therefore, reject the contention of the assessee and hold that when once the Income-tax Officer comes to the conclusion that the assessee s failure to file the return within the time allowed by section 139(1) of the Act was without a reasonable excuse, penalty is attracted in respect of such a default under section 271(1)(a), notwithstanding the fact that the assessee had filed a voluntary return under section 139(4) within the time limit fixed thereunder. In such a case the Income-tax Officer has no option except to levy penalty at the rate of 2 of the tax for every month during which the default continued, subject to a maximum of 50 of the tax in the aggregate. Hence question No. 2 is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner of Income-tax. Advocate s fee is Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 38 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was entitled to registration for the assessment year 1963-64, under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 37 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, there is any material for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the partnership consisted of only one person, namely, Yadam Chennaiah, and is the firm entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act - genuineness of a firm is a question of fact - but when there was any material for the Tribunal to find that the partnership was/was not genuine, is a question of law – held that there was material for the Tribunal to conclude that there was no genuine firm and that the business was the sole proprietorship concern

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 36 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that it was within the competence of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner while disposing of the appeal under the Income-tax Act, 1961, to have set aside the assessment with a direction to the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment from the return stage under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 35 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 – Whether the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty had information in his possession in consequence of which he could have reason to believe that any property chargeable to estate duty had escaped assessment – Held yes - Whether Smt. Chander Mohni, daughter of the deceased, late Shri Goverdhan Dass, is an accountable person in respect of the property passing on the death of late Shri Goverdhan Dass - Held no - Whether, unequal partition of the joint Hindu family properties amongst the deceased and his sons have given rise to any disposition made by the deceased in favour of his relatives within the meaning of section 27 of the Estate Duty Act – Held no

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee dies before filing the returns - whether fresh notice u/s 34(1A) should be served on legal representatives – Held, no - recovery procedings when assessmet was set aside

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the relief under section 25(4) in the year 1949-50 – Held, yes - Whether, Tribunal was right in holding that the succession took place on October 12, 1948, and, consequently, the benefit of section 25(4) could be availed of only in the year 1950-51 – Held, yes - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 4,810 was rightly taxed and as profit under section 10(2)(vii), second proviso, of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 – Held, no

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Reassessment - Reference to HC – point that ITO had no reason to believe before issuing notice was not raised before Tribunal – such point cannot be raised before HC – reassessment was valid

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 31 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessee was entitled to a development rebate on the costs of the moulds installed by the assessee – held that, assessee cannot claim the rebate when such reserve was not created

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 30 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Claim for deduction under section 10(2)(xv) - Litigation Expenses on appointments of receiver and authorised controller - it was not shown that the expenditure was necessary or that it was spent for the safeguard of assessee's business assets or for preventing or removing any hindrance in the way of the smooth functioning of assessee's business – expenditure are not deductible

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 29 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Effect of repeal of section 137 - all assessments, which had been completed prior to the repeal of section 137 of the Act of 1961, would be protected, in so far as they fall within the purview of section 54 of the Act of 1922 and section 137 of the Act of 1961, but there will be no prohibition against the summoning of such documents in respect of assessments which were completed after 1st April, 1964, when section 137 of the Act of 1961 was repealed - revision is, consequently, accepted to this extent that all the documents which related to the period after 1st April, 1964, can be summoned, but not those documents which related to the assessments which had been completed prior to the said date

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Amount spent on obtaining stay of recovery of income-tax - Prima facie, stay of recovery of tax has nothing to do with the carrying on of the business of the assessee. nor has it anything to do with its purpose – such expenditure is not an allowable expenditure

  ---

• 1971 (2) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Explanation 2 to section 23A – applicability - Income from Business - wholly or mainly in the Dealing or holding of Investments

  ---

123456