Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1976 1976 (6) 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 64 of 64 Records

• 1976 (6) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Retrospective Effect, Sales Tax Authorities

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... also did not refund the amount to the persons from whom it had been collected. In these circumstances the Supreme Court held that the amount of sales tax realised by the appellant in its character as an auctioneer formed part of its trading receipts. The fact that the appellant credited the amount in his books separately as Sales Tax Collection Account did not make any material difference. Hence, we hold that the amounts of sales tax collected by the assessees during the relevant period have been legally collected by them in view of the provisions of section 11 of the Amendment Act of 1970 since the amounts of sales tax so collected form part of the sale price they are trading receipts. It is only when they pay the sales tax to the sales tax authorities, they will be entitled to claim deduction of the amount in that year of payment. The references are answered accordingly, in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each reference.

  ---

• 1976 (6) TMI 3 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  AAC And Tribunal

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ies to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Income-tax Officer Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of any orders passed under this section to the assessee and to the Commissioner. (4) Save as provided in section 256, orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final.

  ---

• 1976 (6) TMI 2 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Finding Of Fact, Levy Of Penalty, Question Of Law, Reference To High Court

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... person concerning a fact in dispute or a matter in issue is certainly a relevant item of evidence which can be taken into consideration in arriving at a finding on the said issue or question of fact. Hence the Tribunal was acting fully within its powers in placing reliance on the admission made by the assessee in the agreement dated September 27, 1969, evidencing the settlement for reaching the conclusion that there had been concealment of its income by the assessee. That is a pure finding of fact and, in the circumstances of this case, it is not possible to characterise it as either arbitrary or perverse. We are not, therefore, satisfied that any question of law which requires to be decided by this, court arises from that part of the order of the Tribunal which relates to the finding aforementioned, correctness of which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner. The original petition is, therefore, dismissed but, in the circumstances, we do not make any order as to cost.

  ---

• 1976 (6) TMI 1 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal To Tribunal, Delay In Filing Return, Income Tax Act, Reasonable Cause

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e time allowed under s. 139(1) and (2). The concession given under s. 139(4) is restricted to the assessment and cannot be availed of by the assessee for all purposes under the Act including the penalty proceeding. If the assessee s interpretation is to be accepted the time limit prescribed in s. 139(1) and (2) would be otiose and wholly unnecessary except for purposes of charging interest. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid decision. Thus, even if we consider the question referred to us bereft of the clause taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. 1970 77 ITR 518 , it must be answered in the affirmative. No other point was urged by Mr. Sen. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly. Send a copy of this order to the Tribunal for its information. K. LAHIRI J.--I agree.

  ---

1234