Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1973 1973 (9) 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 92 of 92 Records

• 1973 (9) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the burden of proof that an amount of refund was actually allowed as deduction in an earlier year is on the department - " Whether, on the facts of this case, section 10(2A) of the Act could be invoked in bringing the sum of Rs. 21,107 to tax ? " - when the circumstances are capable of being construed either in favour of the department or in favour of the assessee, the rule is that they should be construed in favour of the assessee. The conclusion of the Tribunal that the amount in question had been allowed or deducted in any earlier assessment year is not based upon any evidence at all and is based on merely surmise and conjecture. We, therefore, hold that the amount of Rs. 21,107 is not includible in the assessee-company's income of this year under section 10(2A) of the Act. The question referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.

  ---

• 1973 (9) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  " 1. Whether, Commissioner having authorised an appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in passing an order under section 33B relying solely on the very order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the purposes of holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue ? 2. Whether section 33B proceedings can be taken against the legal heirs of a deceased assessee, and if so, whether the proceedings taken in this case by issue of a notice on an heir who was the karta of the Hindu undivided family are valid ? 3. Whether the legality of an assessment which had become final could be challenged in the proceedings taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? " - We answer the first question in the negative, and the second question in the affirmative, and return the third question unanswered

  ---

• 1973 (9) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  " Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that out of the sum of Rs. 21,232, the expenditure incurred in connection with technical know-how for manufacturing electric hoists was capital expenditure ? " On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that out of the sum of Rs. 22,233, the expenditure incurred in connection with technical know-how for manufacturing electric hoists was capital expenditure. We answer the question referred to us accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

  ---

• 1973 (9) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Refund of TDS - assessee was allotted certain shares on partition - assessee made application for registration of the transfer that there was delay in registration because of the attachment of the shares by income-tax department- the dividend declared was also assessed - whether the assessee is entitled to claim refund of the TDS – Held, yes

  ---

• 1973 (9) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was bad in law for want of opportunity of hearing to the Wealth-tax Officer ?" - Wealth-tax Officer does not have a right of being heard as a matter of course. The absence of opportunity of being heard given to the Wealth-tax Officer would not render the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner bad in law

  ---

• 1973 (9) TMI 7 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution in which the petitioner challenges the recovery proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Whether tax arrears of an unregistered firm can be recovered from a partner

  ---

• 1973 (9) TMI 6 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - "Whether a gift made by a person who is the manager of a joint Hindu family to his wife of a portion of the property belonging to the family is a gift by a person to his spouse within the meaning of section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift-tax Act ?" - Question answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.

  ---

• 1973 (9) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Depreciation and Development Rebate - Whether interest paid on money borrowed for the purchase of land and machinery, foreign tour expenses prior to setting up of factory and payment to foreign collaborator as indemnity form part of actual cost for the purpose of depreciation and development rebate - We, agree with the Tribunal that the said sum cannot be taken to be a part of the cost of the machinery and that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation and development rebate thereon

  ---

• 1973 (9) TMI 4 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether in the presence of the karta of the Hindu undivided family, it is lawful for a member of the Hindu undivided family to sign and verify the memorandum of appeal before the first appellate authority and, if so, whether the said appeal so presented suffers from a curable irregularity or is illegal - When memorandum of appeal by HUF is signed not by a karta but by another, whether it is illegal and also whether it can be allowed to be rectified

  ---

• 1973 (9) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Tax deducted at source from director's salary but not paid to the Government- Winding up of company - whether the Government can claim the amount on a priority basis - since the Income-tax Officer did not show that he was entitled to be paid in priority either the whole or part of the outstanding amount under section 530(1)(a), he was not entitled to leave to proceed to recover the taxes

  ---

• 1973 (9) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - money received by the heirs of the deceased under an accident insurance policy – whether it is liable to estate duty

  ---

• 1973 (9) TMI 1 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of order - We hold that the order, passed by the respondent in the inquiry under section 132(5) was illegal and void as it was passed in violation of the mandatory requirements of rule 112A(4) and in violation of the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, allow this special civil application and quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent as the same was illegal. As a consequence of quashing and setting aside the, it will follow that the amount of Rs. 1,70,000 and 23 guineas which were seized by the respondent from the locker in the Surat People's Co-operative Bank must be returned to the petitioner. It will, however, be open to the respondent to adopt such proceedings as he can in law adopt as regards these two items. The respondent must pay the costs of this special civil application to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Mr. Kaji, for the respondent, applies that the operation of this order may be stayed for two weeks so that in the meanwhile an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court may be preferred. Operation of this order is stayed accordingly for a period of two weeks from to-day

  ---

12345