Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1977 1977 (7) 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 101 to 104 of 104 Records

• 1977 (7) TMI 4
  

  Agricultural Income, Bad Debt, Money Lending

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he two zarpeshgi deeds were cash advance lease acquired by the assessee on agreeing to pay Rs. 1,000 per annum, and, therefore, the leasehold property was not a security for the loan or debt. This will be so even if the zarpeshgi bond was executed in respect of past consideration, provided that the other considerations for making it a cash advance loan are satisfied-vide Nidha Sah v. Murli Dhar 1903 LR 30 IA 54 ILR 25 All 115 (PC). The finding recorded by the Tribunal, in my opinion, is correct, based as it is on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of this very assessee. Once it is held that the thika properties were not security for loan, the claim for exemption of the sum of Rs. 29,16,000 as revenue loss or admissible bad debt has to be rejected. The question as reframed has to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, however, I would make no order as to costs. B. S. SINHA J.--I agree.

  ---

• 1977 (7) TMI 3
  

  Exemption From Tax, State Warehousing Corporation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ht from the beginning in s. 80P(ii)(e) where such co-operative societies are given deduction in respect of similar income derived by the co-operative society from the letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities, to the extent of the whole of such income. And even under the earlier corresponding section as well as this section, the co-operative banks would earn that exemption without any trading activity as such. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was right in holding that this assessee-corporation fulfilled all the three requisites for earning exemption under s. 10(29). In that view of the matter, this reference must be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This reference is accordingly disposed of and the revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee. The other references are accordingly answered and the revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee in each reference.

  ---

• 1977 (7) TMI 2
  

  Whether, the amount spent by the assessee in purchasing goods for the purpose of resale is expenditure within the meaning of section 40A(3) - question of law - Therefore the Tribunal was directed to refer the case to High Court

  ---

• 1977 (7) TMI 1
  

  Tribunal has set aside the penalty of ₹ 7,500 levied on the assessee - Tribunal appears to have overlooked the amendment made by Act 5 of 1964 to s. 271 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The word " deliberately ", which occurred in the unamended section, was omitted by the amendment and an Explanation was added to that section which was previously not there - Tribunal should have considered the amendment. However, reference was refused taking overall view of the case

  ---

1 ....23456