Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1971 1971 (4) 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 74 Records

• 1971 (4) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  By this application under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, Nand Kishore Jhajharia, challenges the validity of certain reassessment proceedings - if the department wants to assess any of the amounts in any other year, then it is for the department to establish that such amounts constitute the income of that particular year - therefore, at this stage it could not be said that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in issuing the reassessment notices

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 33 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business loss - gold belonging to the assessee confiscated by the customs authorities - action is taken directly against the property and the confiscation cannot be said to be trading or commercial loss connected with or incidental to the assessee's business - Infraction or violation of the law is not a normal incident of a trade or business and, therefore, the penalty by way of confiscation of the contraband gold is not a commercial loss so as to be allowed as a permissible deduction - Tribunal is justified in law in disallowing the sum of Rs. 56,978 claimed as a business loss for the assessment year 1963-64

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Notices under section 148 - said notices were issued on the ground that the petitioner-company had enjoyed benefits under section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which the petitioner was not entitled to in the relevant assessment years - writ in the nature of mandamus issued directing the respondents to recall, cancel and withdraw the notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act mentioned in the petition - If the respondents have passed orders of assessment, the same also are not to be given effect to and they are quashed accordingly and let a writ of certiorari issue accordingly

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Offence - Penalty as well as Prosecution - assessee can be subjected to both penalty and prosecution for the same offence

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 30 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Remuneration paid by a partner by engaging another person ofr firm - Whether, Tribunal was correct in holding that the salary payment was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of earning share of profits and remuneration from firm and as such was an allowable deduction under the provisions of the Income-tax Act – Held, yes - held that remuneration paid to such worker by the partner is deductible from his remuneration received from the firm

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Applicability of period of limitation provided u/s 34(3) on the order passed u/s 23A – since order under s. 23A is not an assessment order within the meaning of section 34(3 - period of limitation on that section is not applicable

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Reference To High court – contention that valuers report (which were relied upon by tribunal during dispute of valuation) did not disclose reasons for its decision was not raised before the Tribunal – reference cannot be made to HC

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Leviability of penalty - evidence on records are insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had actually earned the income and that he had concealed the same – penalty not leviable

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, levy of Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 12,500 by way of penalty by the Tribunal amounted to an enhancement of the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner?" - Held that: The Tribunal had before it several circumstances on the basis of which it reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 12,500 for the two assessment years and when doing so the Tribunal did not, as indeed it was not bound to, proceed on the basis that the penalty imposed Should be 50 per cent. of the maximum penalty. Accordingly we answer the question referred in the negative and against the assessee.

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - interpretation of section 50 of the Estate Duty Act - whether persons who are entitled to relief under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act could only be dealt with under section 61 of the Act

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Whether provision of sections 64(i) and 64(ii) violate the fundamental right guaranteed under art. 14 OR art. 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g)of the Constitution – since these sections are constitutionally valid, assessments and the notices of demand are not liable to be quashed as urged on behalf of the petitioners

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Interest on excess advance tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of the first or original assessment order for the year and not the date of the order passed consequent to the appellate order. Having regard to the second proviso to section 18A(5), no interest is payable because the instalments paid during the financial year did not exceed the tax determined by the original assessment. The Income-tax Officer is right in holding that no question of interest under section 18A(5) arises in the present case. In the circumstances, we consider it unnecessary to decide whether the application by the petitioner to the Income-tax Officer could have been considered under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We also do not think it necessary to consider the objection of the respondents that an equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of revision application to the Commissioner of Income-tax was available to the petitioner against the impugned order of the Income-tax Officer. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - passing of property - exigible to estate duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nceivable difference at all which could be taken advant. age of by the revenue to project the theory of passing of Property from one to the other, as if it changed, hands. Passing implies movement of the estate from one dying to another and means changing hands. This event has not occurred in the instant case. In the view that I take I hold that in the hands of the petitioner as accountable person, the estate in question is not exigible to estate duty under the Act as there has not been a passing of the estate in accordance with prescriptions of the Act. It, therefore, follows that, notwithstanding the f act that the petitioner has availed himself of the alternative remedy by filing an appeal before the appropriate authority against the order impugned, the challenge against the order is well-founded and the rule nisi has to be, therefore, made absolute. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed, but in the peculiar circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 21 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Petitioner challenges the imposition and collection of penalties for the omission to pay advance tax demanded on ground that penalty under section 221 can be levied prior to the amendment of section 221(1) in 1970

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 20 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Tax Credit Certificate (Excise Duty on Excess Clearance) Scheme, 1965 (made, by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 280ZE read with section 280ZD of the Income-tax Act, 1961),was made applicable to the cement industry in 1965 to provide an incentive for increased production - Whether tax credit was to be given in respect of special excise duty levied u/s 80 of Finance Act, 1965 also

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Transfer of house by the assessee to his wife - Whether the income from the house can be included in assessee's total income - since transfer was for adequate consideration, income from such asset is includible in assessee's total income

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Revenue Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal of assessee holding that the tax was not recoverable by summary certificate procedure during the pendency of the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal - impugned application by the UOI under article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order of the Divisional Commissioner reversing the order of the Tax Recovery Officer - order of the Divisional Commissioner is set aside

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the expression "tax payable" used in section 280ZB, means the tax payable upon the regular assessment, as contended by the revenue OR the tax payable upon a self-assessment u/s 140A, as contended by the petitioner

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Partition of HUF - Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no valid partial partition in law as claimed by the Hindu undivided family - Held, no - As there was a valid partial partition in law in the Hindu undivided family, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the interest paid by the firm to the wife and minor sons of Karta was rightly added back to the income of the firm

  ---

• 1971 (4) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Debts incurred by deceased father and payable by the son - whether such debts are allowable as a deduction in calculating the net wealth of the assessee

  ---

1234