Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1973 1973 (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 81 to 100 of 101 Records

• 1973 (4) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer to call for accounts for more than three years for making an assessment - This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice K. L. Roy delivered on 11 th March 1970. In an application under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, which is the appellant before us, had challenged a notice under section 131 issued to the principal officer of the appellant by the Income-tax Officer- for making an assessment the Income-tax Officer is empowered u/s 143(3) to require production of such documents as he might require - his power is not curtailed by section 142(1)(b)

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 21 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - computation of standard deduction – inclusion of bonus shares issued - "Whether Tribunal was correct in its construction of the expression 'paid-up capital' occurring in the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, so as to include therein even such reserves as had been capitalized, and consequently in reducing the chargeable profits by Rs. 1,13,447?"

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  ITO issues notice under section 178 of Income-tax Act to the Official Liquidator to set apart the amount of tax dues - whether sanction of company court under section 446 of Companies Act would be necessary - we find support for the view that the process of recovery of tax which rank as a debt pari passu with other unsecured debts due from the company could not be taken away from the purview of section 446 of the Companies Act

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee-company was formerly carrying on the business of supply electricity at various places in Madras State. The business was taken over by the Madras Electricity Board under the Madras Electricity Undertakings Acquisition Act, 1954, with effect from June 1, 1957. As from this date the assessee-company ceased its business of aupplying electricity and did not deprive any income from the business as such - It carried on no business, but it had some interest income which was assessed under the head "other sources" - Whether expenses relating to establishment, salaries, remuneration and travelling of directors, etc. can be treated as having been incurred solely for earning the income and whether the Income-tax Officer would be justified in estimating portion of the expenses as attributable to earning the income

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Agricultural Land - Whether a land can be treated as agricultural land if it was so described in income-tax and wealth-tax returns - When land is sold by an assessee, if he is shareholder of a company along with his relatives to that company for an amount less than the market value, what is the effect of the transaction - if the transaction is treated as deemed gift, whether capital gains also would be attracted

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Whether an order u/s 132(8) should be communicated to the assessee and should be made within 180 days from the date of seizure - Whether the time can be extended at the instance of the officer to whom documents, etc. are handed over and whether information obtained during seizure can be obtained by other authorities under their own powers - petitioner has challenged the retention of the documents beyond the period of 180 days specified in section 132(8) - Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Remuneration paid to the assessee's general manager who was an associate of its managing agent – assessee-company claimed the above amounts paid as remuneration to the said general manager after November 1, 1959, as expenditure coming under section 10(2)(xv) - allowability as deduction

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Small percentage kept as dharmada and kept in separate account for being used only for charities - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Messrs. Thakur Das Shyam Sunder, prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax - even if some discretion was given to spend the amount deposited with the assessee on charity of his own choice, it does not mean that either no trust was created or that the trust created was invalid - order of the Income-tax Officer treating these amounts as the assessee's taxable income was invalid and should be quashed.

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 14 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee, filed her returns for both these years declaring incomes from property and interest at Rs. 71,919 and Rs. 89,420, respectively. In her return the assessee claimed collection charges of Rs. 4,529 and Rs. 4,404 against income from property known as Bangalore House Ranbir Mahal and Bombay flat - assessee is not entitled to claim any deduction in respect of these expenditures under section 24(1)(viii) of Income-tax Act, 1961

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 13 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
  

  Levy of penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars - Whether mens rea is necessary - hold that no error of law is involved in the judgment of the Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal, therefore, deleting the penalty was perfectly correct in law

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Petitioner-company is a Government of India undertaking registered under the Companies Act, 1956 - The questions that arise for determination in this petition pertain to development rebate provided for in section 33 of the income-tax Act, 1961 the conditions for allowance of such development rebate prescribed by section 34 and computation of capital employed in an industrial undertaking under section 80J of the said Act and rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - valuation of share

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... puts an end to the managing agency rights as on that date. The Board has taken the view that it is possible for the purchaser to expect that the Central Government would not summarily terminate the managing agency agreement on 15th August, 1960. But we cannot agree with that view. How can the purchaser expect that the Government will not give effect to the statutory provisions already enacted ? The contention of the accountable persons that the remuneration which the managing agents would have earned for the three years will be the maximum value for the managing agency rights has, therefore, to be accepted. We hold, therefore, that the deceased s 1/4th share in the managing agency rights has to be taken as the 1/4th share in the three years remuneration payable to the managing agents. We, therefore, answer questions Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 and 6 in the negative and against the revenue. The accountable persons will be entitled to their costs from the revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee had been and at the material time also was a partner in a firm called M/s. Ramesh & Co. In this firm the assessee had 8 annas share and the balance was shared by three other partners, Kunjilal, assessee's father, Hariram, assessee's brother, and one Jagdish Prosad, a stranger. From his account with the said firm the assessee made two gifts to his wife, Kaushalya Debi, Rs. 21,000 on 10th November, 1960, and Rs. 30,000 on the 28th November, 1960. The assessee also made a gift of Rs. 11,000 to his mother, Smt. Chilli Bai, on 28th November, 1960, by similarly drawing from his account with the firm. - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share of the profit of assessee's wife was includible in the total income of the assessee under section 64(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? "

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
  

  When questions of law raised for earlier years were rejected by Supreme Court and also the application for special leave was rejected - High Court was not justified in accepting the Commissioner's applications under section 66(2). We, accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the order of the High Court

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Assessment made long after the firm was dissolved - assessment was also made on a non-existing firm and that too without any notice to the interested person. Hence, in our opinion, the High Court was right in its conclusion that there was no valid assessment - Once we come to the conclusion that the assessment made on Mr. Sattler was not valid, it necessarily follows that Mrs. Sattler was not liable to discharge the alleged tax liability

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Return was submitted to an Income-tax Officer who had no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, over the assessee - Consequently notice issued by him and the returns filed in response were invalid. The fresh notice by the second officer and the assessments by him were therefore valid

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
  

  When a trader transfers his goods to another trader at a price which is less than the market price, so long as the transaction is bona fide the revenue authorities cannot consider the market price ignoring the real price fetched to compute profits from the transaction

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the amounts claimed by the appellants as their losses in transactions in gunny bags which were concluded by the transfer or delivery of pucca delivery orders were speculative losses under Explanation 2 to the proviso to s. 24(1) - authorities under the Act have completely misdirected themselves as to the questions of fact to be decided. Hence, there is need for a fresh enquiry. Therefore it will be in the interest of the parties to remand the cases to the Tribunal for a fresh enquiry

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether in computing the market value of the shares the assessee is entitled to the deduction by way of brokerage commission - Whether, on a true construction of section 5(1)(viii) & 5(1)(xv) of the Wealth-tax Act, the assessee is entitled to the exclusion of the value of jewellery from the computation of his total wealth - Whether any part of the amount fixed as compensation payable to the assessee under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is liable for inclusion in the total wealth

  ---

• 1973 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the assessee-firm is entitled to registration under section 26A - subsequent alteration of one of the terms of the deed, eventhough was valid would not validate the application for gegistration - appeal of assessee is dismissed

  ---

123456