Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1976 1976 (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 121 to 130 of 130 Records

• 1976 (2) TMI 10 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Exemption From Tax, Income Tax Act, Taxing Statute

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... procedure and practice. The company challenged the impugned notice in these proceedings even before the return is filed by them, for, they say, in R. C. No. 22/70 on November 22, 1970, this court held that assessment when made in pursuance of the notice after full enquiry cannot be questioned as such a notice merged in the order of assessment and ceased to be open to challenge . Further, the Bench posed and answered the question . . . the issue of notice without reasonable belief would be illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. But, would the issue of such an illegal notice render the subsequent proceedings so totally lacking in jurisdiction so as to make them void ? We think not. With great respect, if I may say so, to state so is to state rather widely. These observations, in fact, impelled me to go into the merits of the matter otherwise, I thought, the petitioner-company should have been directed to seek their remedy before the authorities under the Income-tax Act.

  ---

• 1976 (2) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Application For Registration, Bona Fide, Firm Registration, Income Tax Act, Question Of Fact

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... erely a device to cover an ulterior purpose such as laches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. So also in Punjabi University v. Acharya Swami Ganesh, AIR 1972 SC 1973, 1974, their Lordships held that bona fide mistakes have got to be taken note of by the courts in considering whether the delay in filing an appeal should be condoned or not. It was observed It has been repeatedly held by courts that a mistake by a lawyer is good ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, it is essentially a question of fact whether the mistake of the counsel was bona fide. That is the crux of the matter. Since, in the present case, the Tribunal, on the facts and the circumstances enumerated above, came to the conclusion that the lapse on the part of the counsel was bona fide, the Tribunal was right in condoning the delay. Accordingly, we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative. Parties shall bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1976 (2) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Import Entitlements

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... is the position then rectification was not possible. Even if an order had been passed through oversight, rectification of the order would involve a decision on two contending views on which debate is possible. Such a procedure, in my opinion, is not within the scope of s. 154 of the Act. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the nature of rectifications being what these are, these mistakes cannot be described to be self-evident or apparent and as such do not come within the purview of s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The notice is, therefore, without jurisdiction. In the premises, the said notice is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are restrained from giving effect to the same. The rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. If any order has been passed in pursuance of the aforesaid notice, the same is also quashed and set aside and the respondents are restrained from giving effect to the same. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1976 (2) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Absence Of Reasonable Cause, Inaccurate Particulars

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... can well be said that section 22(3) is merely a proviso to section 22(1). Thus, a return submitted at any time before the assessment is made is a valid return. In considering whether a return made is within time, sub-section (1) of section 22 must be read along with sub-section (3) of that section. A return whether it is a return of income, profits or gains or of loss must be considered as having been made within the time prescribed if it is made within the time specified in section 22(3). In other words, if section 22(3) is complied with, section 22(1) also must be held to have been complied with. If compliance has been made with the latter provision, the requirements of section 22(2A) would stand satisfied. It is clear enough that their Lordships did not hold that penalty proceedings under s. 271 cannot be initiated. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative. The question is answered against the assessee. The parties shall bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1976 (2) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment Proceedings, Commercial Profit, Income Tax Act, Tax On Undistributed Income

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... plying the commercial principles. And it has not been done in the present case. In other words, the Tribunal has not applied the commercial principles nor has ascertained the basic facts in order to determine whether these losses were really, the commercial profits or business losses for the purposes of s. 23A of the Act. Since the Tribunal has not found nor stated the primary facts on question No. 1, we are unable to answer it. Therefore, it must go back to the Tribunal for its determination in the light of this judgment. The Tribunal shall ascertain the primary facts and in order to do so shall give opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence and counter-evidence and also give them an opportunity of being heard. The answer to question No. 2 depends upon the primary facts on question No. 1 and, therefore, we are unable to answer it for the reasons already given. This reference is accordingly disposed of and there will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.--I agree.

  ---

• 1976 (2) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... order made is itself without the sanction of law and the question of the validity of the transfer would arise only when specific demands are made against the properties and proceedings are taken to recover the same by proceedings against the properties, it is unnecessary to consider the question on merits as to whether the ITO was justified in coming to the conclusion that the transfers were with intent to defraud the revenue at this stage. The question would arise only when specific demands are raised and sought to be recovered from the properties and persons interested put forth their claims against such recovery. For the reasons stated above, the order, Ex. 1, is quashed. Shri Rajasekhara Murthy, learned counsel for the revenue, submitted that the certificate itself has been withdrawn and proceedings by way of sale have been dropped. In these circumstances, there is no need to quash the sale proclamation, Ex. 2, as it is not being pursued. Parties to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1976 (2) TMI 4 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Exemption From Tax, Income Tax Act, Taxing Statute

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... erefore, clearly distinguishable and though it is given in the context of s. 13(2), it cannot assist the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, it would appear that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of payment of fees to the various tax practitioners cannot be said to have been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning of dividend income and that it is, therefore, not a permissible deduction under s. 57(iii). We must, therefore, answer the second question in each of the references in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessees. To sum up, we answer the questions referred to us as follows I. T. R. No. 134/1974 I. T. R. No. 135/1974 Q. No. 1.---In the affirmative. Q. No. 1.---In the affirmative. Q. No. 2.---In the negative. Q. No. 2.---In the negative. The assessee in each case will pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.

  ---

• 1976 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  When shares carrying not less than 25 per cent. of voting rights were held by the public in the absence of evidence that control was by the shareholders, whether the company can be said to be one in which public were substantially interested - High Court was not right in answering the question in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 1976 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Interpretation and constitutional validity of sub-clause (a) of clause (26) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - exemption from tax between the income of the member of the scheduled tribe accruing or arising from any source in the area, State or Union Territories mentioned in s. 10(26) and income of such a person from a source outside such area, is not discriminatory - no violation of article 14 of Constitution of India

  ---

• 1976 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether silver bars, sovereigns and rupee coins used for purposes of puja, festivals and rituals can be treated as " personal effects " for the purposes of computing capital gains - Whether the assets sold were capital assets within the meaning of section 2(4A) chargeable to capital gains tax u/s 12B - Held that the aforesaid articles were capital assets and not personal effects as contended on behalf of the assessee-appellant and as such could not be excluded while computing the gains

  ---

1 ....34567