Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1978 1978 (10) 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 110 of 110 Records

• 1978 (10) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Estimated Income, High Court, Question Of Law

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... dated July 30, 1974 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in maintaining the estimate of the income of the assessee during the relevant assessment year 1969-70, at Rs. 25,000, even after reducing a sum of Rs. 4,000 on account of mistake in arithmetical calculation, as specified in para. 2 of the order of the Tribunal, dated July 30, 1974, and after allowing deduction of a sum of Rs. 6,000 in respect of borrowings repaid in the year 1972, and after considering that some initial capital was invested by the assessee in the money lending business by way of past savings ? We have reframed question No. 3 suggested by the assessee in order to bring out clearly the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, allow this application and call upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the above question of law arising out of its order to this court for adjudication.

  ---

• 1978 (10) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Levy Of Penalty, Penalty Proceedings

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Works 1977 107 ITR 743. This was noticed again in our earlier judgment referred to already. Counsel cited a few more decisions generally dealing with the aspect of jurisdiction or jurisdictional condition or specifically taking the view that the provision of the nature involved in these cases is not a procedural section and cannot, have retrospective effect. We think it unnecessary to examine these decisions as they do not contain any new or different reasoning, other than what was involved and dealt with on the earlier occasion, by the earlier Division Bench ruling of this court. Following the earlier Division Bench ruling in Kerala Oil Mills case 1980 121 ITR 254 (Ker), we answer the question of law referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar, will be communicated to the Appellate Tribunal, as required by law.

  ---

• 1978 (10) TMI 9 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Cash Credits, HUF

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... his contention. As is obvious, the contention of the assessee based on the principle as enacted in the provisions of s. 68 of the new Act was repelled by the Tribunal solely on the ground that the assesses cannot take advantage of the said provisions as the said provisions were not retrospective and we having come to the conclusion that this golden principle of the rule of evidence was well established even before the provisions of s. 68 of the Act were enacted, the question of law did arise in this case and was rightly directed to be referred to this court for its opinion. For the reasons recorded above, the question of law referred to us is answered in the negative and it is held that the Income-tax Tribunal was not justified in law on the facts and circumstances of this case in holding the cash credits of Rs. 47,200 as the individual income of the assessee although this cash credit was entered in the books of account of the HUF. However, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1978 (10) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Change Of Law, Delay In Filing Writ, Estate Duty, Writ

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e petitioner in his petition dated February 24, 1974, stating that it had already passed an order earlier, and that it was not within its right to pass another order under s. 64(7) of the Act. Interests of justice require that the 4th respondent should be directed to dispose of the matter according to law and in conformity with the decision of this court in Ex. P-1 judgment and giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and by adopting that course no prejudice could be caused to the revenue. For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Ex. P-5 order of the 4th respondent is quashed, and the 4th respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner s appeal conformably to Ex. P-1 judgment of this court, ignoring the purported remand order dated February 8, 1968, and Exs. P-2, P-3 and P-4 orders, after giving due notice and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, there, will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1978 (10) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Agricultural Income Tax, Previous Year

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... . The former part alone would apply. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in its conclusion that as the accounts of the joint family were being made up to the end of the Malayalam era and as the joint family had been assessed on that footing, the assessee, despite his not maintaining accounts, was entitled to have the previous year reckoned as the year according to the Malayalam era. We, accordingly, answer the first part of the question referred in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee and the second part of it also in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. We answer question No. 2 in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There, will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court will be communicated to the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax and Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, as required by law.

  ---

• 1978 (10) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Cash Payments, Disallowance

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... annot be held that it was so ready at that point of time. The result is that this reference should be allowed. However, the question which has been referred to us is not happily worded and, therefore, in order to bring out the real dispute between the parties in focus, we reframe the question as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had set up its business by about the end of June, 1956, since it was equipped with all the plant and machinery and the raw materials necessary for manufacturing the products ? We answer this question as reframed by us in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay costs of this reference to the Commissioner. In view of our answer to the question reframed by us in this reference, there would be no order in Income-tax Application No. 40 of 1975. Rule issued on the said application is discharged with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1978 (10) TMI 5 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Cash Payments, Disallowance

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... me-tax 1963 48 ITR 92 (SC), and Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1965 56 ITR 365, be restricted to the evidence on the record and may not be entitled to take additional evidence. That may result in injustice. In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to decline to answer the question. . . . . . We are unable to answer the questions referred to us because we feel that it would work out injustice if the assessee and the department are not allowed an opportunity to lead evidence on the point of applicability of rule 6DD(j) as meant to be applied by the Circular of the Board dated May 31, 1977. It will be open to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal pending before it under section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the light of the observations made by Its after determining the question which ought to be decided in the light of the Circular of the Board dated May 31, 1977. There will be no order as to costs of these two references. Orders accordingly.

  ---

• 1978 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Profits and gains derived from new industrial undertakings - claimed exemption of the income from the new unit to the extent of 6% of the average capital employed in it under s. 15C - profits or gains of an industrial undertaking (or a hotel) to which this section applies shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 10

  ---

• 1978 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Assessee, a private limited company, carried on several businesses amongst which there was a business of cold storage plant- new industrial undertaking to which sub-s. (4) of s. 80J of the I. T. Act, 1961, applied - assessee is entitled to deduction of relevant amount of capital employed and deficiency of earlier year for the purpose of s. 80J

  ---

• 1978 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Contractors who undertake works on behalf of the Government - whether the cost of materials supplied by the Government (M. E. S. Department) for being used in the execution of works is liable to be taken into consideration while estimating the profits of a contractor - since ownership lies with the Government, there is no element of profit in its value.

  ---

1 ....23456