Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1978 1978 (2) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 183 of 183 Records
-
1978 (2) TMI 3
Closely Held Company, Company, Distributable Surplus ... ... ... ... ..... 0,000 has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal in considering whether there was a distributable surplus. But the Tribunal has taken a figure of tax liability of Rs. 35,000 on the basis of the addition of the entirety of Rs. 80,000 from undisclosed sources. Now, that cannot be the correct position, because the tax liability has to be computed on the income upholding the addition of Rs. 40,000 and not Rs. 80,000. After that tax liability has been computed, it will be possible to determine the question whether there was a distributable surplus and whether the order under s. 23A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was not justified in law. Therefore, the matter is referred back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will dispose of the matter by taking into consideration the tax liabilities on the total figure as computed by the Tribunal and thereupon decide the question whether the order under s. 23A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was justified or not. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1978 (2) TMI 2
... ... ... ... ..... to import, and the business of selling imported goods and the earning of income from such sales and so, in one sense, connected with the manufacturing, the connection is not sufficiently proximate to enable us to say that the income was attributable to the manufacturing process of leather. This is the view taken in T. C. No. 406 of 1974 1989 179 ITR 179 in dealing with the same assessee s case with reference to the Finance Act No. 19 of 1968, in dealing with the Explanation to section 2(6)(d) of that Act wherein almost identical words are used. We held therein that the assessee s contention is not well-founded. In the light of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs including counsel s fee Rs. 500. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench.
-
1978 (2) TMI 1
Partition deed formed by the karta and others contains a clause that business was joint family business, the share of karta in a partnership which came into being on the partition could not be his separate property but it is the property of the joint family - assessee's appeal is dismissed
....
|
|