Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1976 1976 (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 121 to 131 of 131 Records

• 1976 (9) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Hundi Loans, Income Escaping Assessment, Jurisdiction Of Court

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s set out already. There is a clear finding of the Tribunal which we have already extracted that the transfer in each of these cases is for consideration. Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act defines gift as meaning, the transfer by one person to another of any existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration in money or money s worth ........ In view of the fact that there is a finding of the existence of consideration in money or money s worth it would follow that there is no gift. We have ourselves looked into the partnership deed in which it is clearly stated that the new partners were being taken for the purpose of expansion of business and for the purpose of getting fresh financial resources. The finding of the Tribunal is, therefore, borne out by materials. In the circumstances, the questions referred to us are answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessees will be entitled to their costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250 in each.

  ---

• 1976 (9) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Attributable To, Income Tax, Sale Proceeds

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e assessable in the hands of the company. As far as the sale proceeds of the timber is concerned, the creditors had only certain rights over the logs as pledgees. In such circumstances, the amounts realised by the sale of the logs would be the property of the company and the interest earned therefrom would, therefore, be assessable in the hands of the company. Subject to this distinction which we have pointed out with reference to the interest referable to the sale proceeds of the lorries and the interest referable to the sale proceeds of the logs of wood, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal will go into the figures which would have to be assessed in the hands of the company as interest referable to the sale proceeds of logs of wood as a result of the above distinction between the interest referable to the sale proceeds of the lorries and that referable to the sale proceeds of logs of wood. There Will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1976 (9) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Earlier Decision, Notice Of Reassessment, Supreme Court

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tioner had escaped assessment. There was, therefore, no existence of any ground for the belief. Moreover, as pointed out above, no evidence has been placed before this court to show that at the time of the issue of the notice under s. 148 of the Act, the respondent No. 1 acted on the basis of the judgment in the case of Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1974 93 ITR 603 (SC). He did not record any reason for his satisfaction for the issue of the notice. In these circumstances, the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice under s. 148 of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid the impugned notice under s. 148 is quashed and let a writ in the nature of certiorari issue in that regard. Further, it is directed that a writ in the nature of prohibition issue commanding the respondent No. 1 not to proceed with the reassessment of the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1972-73. The rule is made absolute, but there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1976 (9) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  High Court, In The Nature, Interest On Refund, Refund Of Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... parate from the refund and the firm had not become entitled to the interest. Shri. T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, the learned counsel for the assessee, sought to support his argument that the expression refund in cl. 4 will take in the interest also by referring to the dictionary meaning of the word refund . As per, Webster s Third New International Dictionary, the word refund has been given the meaning, to reimburse, to pay back, to return (money in restitution). In the light of the dictum laid down by Lord Wright, we do not however think that the Tribunal had committed any error of law in the matter. The question in the reference is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The reference is answered as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment shall be sent under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under s. 260(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1976 (9) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business Loss, Carry Forward And Set Off, Previous Year

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ields place to s. 72(2) and not s. 32(1), and that being the case, in computing current year s income, current year s depreciation must first be allowed and thereafter the business losses carried forward from the previous year. We respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the Allahabad High Court in Mother India Refrigeration Industries case 1971 80 ITR 510. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to us as follows The business losses carried forward from the previous years cannot receive priority over the current depreciation allowance. We, therefore, answer the question, viz. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the business loss carried forward from the previous years should receive priority over the current depreciation allowance for the assessment year 1970-71 ? in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1976 (9) TMI 6 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Profit On Sale, Route Permits

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of route permits represents goodwill of this type which depends more on the location of the routes than on any other factor. But again there is no cost of acquisition so far as the value of route permits is concerned. The value of route permits is tantamount to the value of goodwill which depends upon the location of the business. But if the cost of acquisition of the goodwill of the business is nil, in the view we have taken following the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Rathnam Nadar 1969 71 ITR 433, the consideration received on the transfer of such goodwill cannot be brought to tax as capital gains. In view of these conclusions, we answer the two questions, as reframed by us, as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the department. Question No. 2 In the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1976 (9) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Hundi Loans, Income Escaping Assessment, Jurisdiction Of Court

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the assessee was at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month, and his drawal of a lesser amount would only constitute a unilateral act of waiver of the balance of the remuneration to which he was entitled. That, in such circumstances, the assessee is liable to be taxed on the amount to which he was entitled, is clear from two decisions of this court. The first case is K.R.Kothandaraman v. CIT 1966 62 ITR 348 (Mad). The second one is CIT v. P. Nataraja Sastri 1976 104 ITR 245 (Mad) to which one of us was a party. In these two cases, it has been held that the waiver of the amount due to the assessee would only be an application of the income of the assessee. As the income of the assessee had accrued, he was liable to be taxed whatever he may have done in the form of waiver of a part of the income. It would follow that the question that is referred to us has, therefore, to be answered in the negative and against the assessee and we do so accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1976 (9) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Advance Tax, Change Of Law, Income Tax Act, Interest Payable By Assessee

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tant case. We must point out that even if we are wrong on the second conclusion on the interpretation of s. 216 we reject the contention urged on behalf of the assessee. We, therefore, answer the question, viz., " whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest under section 216 could be levied on the assessee-company for the assessment year 1969-70, when the advance tax payable itself was not underestimated, but the income being underestimated the amount payable in instalments was less ", referred to us, as follows Interest under s. 216 cannot be levied for the assessment year 1969-70 when the advance tax payable by the assessee was not underestimated, but the income being underestimated the amount payable in instalments was reduced. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay costs in this case to the assessee. Advocate's fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1976 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Hold that the development rebate reserve created by the company by duly charging the amount of profit and loss account, although liable as a deduction under the 1922 Act, constituted accumulated profits of the company within the meaning of section 2(6)(e). We accordingly affirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss this appeal

  ---

• 1976 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether higher price received after revaluation by arbitrator is income from adventure in the nature of trade - inspite of the fact that the appellant with held some of the correspondence bearing on the controversy, the department has succeeded in proving that the transaction of sale in question was an adventure in the nature of trade and fell within the definition of "business" in clause (4) of section 2 of the Act. The High Court has rightly answered the question in the affirmative

  ---

• 1976 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Language of section 35(1) is not wide enough conferring power on the Income-tax Officer to amend any order passed by him under the Act and may not be at par with the wide powers conferred on him under section 154(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. Yet it is not too narrow to cover only the order of assessment or of refund in a very restricted or limited sense. It is wide enough to take within its sweep some other orders made under the Act including an order under section 23A - revenue's appeal allowed

  ---

1 ....34567