Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (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 61 to 74 of 74 Records

• 1972 (4) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Payment for acquisition of a capital asset i.e. for acquiring right, title and interest in lease - formal transaction which the parties have chosen will be relevant in the determination of whether the payments were capital or revenue in nature – held that payments made in this case are capital in nature

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - additional grounds - issue regarding status neither raised before Assistant Controller nor in grounds of appeal to the Board – Board would be justified in refusing to entertain the issue raised as additional grounds

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Transfer of shares to sons for a price lower than the market value - on the specific findings given by the Tribunal that the object of the transfer was not with a view to avoid or reduce the assessee's liability to pay tax on the capital gains under section 45, the conclusion of the Tribunal that section 52 will not be attracted appears to be inescapable – we uphold the view of the Tribunal and answer the reference against the revenue

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 11 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Firm – deed – loss - allocation of shares of partners - Whether the allocation must be in accordance with partnership deed – held that, when a partnership is registered, who the partners are can be decided only with reference to the partnership deed – whether treating the share of some of the partners as belonging to others is permissible – held that clubbing of the share of some of the partners in the hands of their respective fathers was not justified - whether loss of cash by theft is a deductible expenditure – held that such loss is admissible deduction in computing the business profit, if the loss is incidental to the business

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 10 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1947 – partition of Hindu Undivided Family - assessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ried on by an association of partners. The earlier Supreme Court decisions were followed but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a different conclusion was reached. We would sum up our conclusions as follows (i) The wife and sons of the assessee did not associate together and decide upon the common exploitation of their lands for common benefit and the assessee was not selected by them to carry out the common purpose of joint cultivation in pursuance of an agreement amongst them. The assessee, his wife and sons do not constitute an association of individuals . (ii) After the properties were divided by metes and bounds they do not hold property as decided in Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. M. L. Bagla. On the aforesaid analysis, the refrained question No. (i) is answered in the negative and No. (ii) in the positive. In the result, the reference applications are allowed with costs. Consolidated hearing fee of Rs. 200. PANDA J.- I agree. Applications allowed.

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - conversion of sole proprietary business into partnership by taking proprietor's sons as partners = Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gift in question was exempt under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act - Tribunal was not right in holding that the gift was exempt from gift-tax under section 5(1)(xiv)

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the order of penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Once penalty proceedings are validly initiated, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could validly continue these proceedings without giving or recording fresh satisfaction - it is not necessary for him to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after an independent satisfaction about the concealment

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Principle of priority of Crown debts - Whether the claim against compensation before Estate Abolition Tribunal is subject to limitation and whether is entitled to priority of Crown debts - Madras Act, XXVI of 1948 provides for payment of compensation which is required to be deposited with the Tribunal and the Tribunal under section 42(1) is directed to deal with claims to or claims enforceable against the compensation. For that purpose, the section prescribes a period of limitation for applications making claims to or enforceable against the compensation and also provides that if the application has not been filed in time, the claim shall cease to be enforceable. It is clear, therefore, that unless the Income-tax Officer had applied within the time limited, which was not the case, he could not claim payment out merely because of the principle of common law that the Union Government is entitled to priority of payment. The common law principle cannot override the provision of section 42

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Property is not available with the police. Under the authority of a warrant issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the officers. of that department have taken custody of this amount from the police station. Proceedings are now pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax. These proceedings are not criminal proceedings. No case is now pending before any court. The statutory powers conferred on the income-tax authorities to deal with the seizure cannot be interfered with by the exercise of the powers under section 439 or under the inherent powers of the court under section 561 A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner in this case prays for an order directing the Commissioner of Income-tax to return the amount seized to him - no such direction can be given - revision fails and the same is dismissed

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Firm – partnership deed does not specify the profit sharing ratios of the partners of the partner-firm - entitlement to registration – held that registration cannot be denied when there is no dispute about the genuineness of the partnership

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee's share in the agricultural lands owned by the two firms was net includible in the not wealth of the assessee - question is answered against the revenue

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sale of the electrical undertaking to the Punjab Government falls in the assessment year 1955-56 when the undertaking was taken over by the Punjab Government by virtue of an option which was exercised in terms of the licence or whether it falls in the assessment year 1963-64 when the balance of the sale price was received by the assessee ?" - The answer to the question under consideration as aforementioned is that the amount became due in the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1963-64 and hence the answer to the question would be in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue.

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the sale value of albezia trees and the sale value of malavembu trees grown to protect rubber plantations, are includible as taxable receipts of the assessee along with his other agricultural income – question is answered in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 1972 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Remuneration received by the managing director as a percentage of company's gross profits in addition to monthly remuneration - held that the remuneration payable to him is salary - appeal of assessee is dismissed

  ---

1234