Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1978 1978 (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 181 to 188 of 188 Records

• 1978 (7) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Trusts, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... . 1 and 2 are answered affirmatively. With regards to the first part of question No. 3, our answer is that the jewellery in Part I of the 1st schedule is to be assessed under s. 21 (1) of the W.T. Act in respect of each of the valuation dates. With regard to the shares fund, the assessment would have to be made on the basis of the actuarial valuation of the life interest of Sahebzadi Anwar Begum. Our answer to question No. 4 is that Sahebzadi Anwar Begum alone is the sole beneficiary, the ultimate persons entitled to other rights in the property being ignored altogether for the purpose of assessment on the valuation dates. Our answer to question No. 5 is that where a beneficiary is entitled to be paid a particular sum out of the income of the fund on particular dates, his interest in the fund on that particular date is to be assessed on the basis of the actuarial valuation of the life interest of the beneficiary. The parties will bear their own costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1978 (7) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal To Tribunal, Firm, Interest On Borrowed Capital

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the portion not appealed against that justice cannot be done unless the latter portion is also interfered with. As held by the Supreme Court in Nirmala Bala Ghosh v. Balai Chand Ghosh, AIR 1965 SC 1874, 1884 ........ Order 41, rule 33, is primarily intended to confer power upon the appellate court to do justice by granting relief to a party who has not appealed, when refusing to do so would result in making inconsistent, contradictory or unworkable order. In the instant case, the interest of justice as well as the requirement of maintaining the consistency and for avoiding a contradictory judgment it was essential that the Tribunal should have disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on the borrowings which had been diverted by Ram Deo Marolia for his personal use. For the reasons given above, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department will be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.

  ---

• 1978 (7) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ot in excess of 25 of the income or Rs. 10,000 whichever would be higher. The assessee could have given the prescribed notice to the ITO stating the purpose for such accumulation, indicating that the moneys so accumulated were invested in Government security and thus could have claimed further exemption. The assessee does not appear to have proceeded on such basis and, therefore, we do not find anything erroneous in the order of the authorities below. The ITO has given the benefit of exemption of 25 of the accumulation to the assessee. For the reasons as stated above, the assessee cannot succeed in this reference. We answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. We, however, direct the Tribunal to consider while disposing of the matter finally whether the assessee is entitled to any further exemption under s. 11 apart from the benefit already granted to it. In the facts and circumstances there will be no order as to costs. BANERJEE J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1978 (7) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Offences, Prosecution

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... been filed either by the concerned ITO or by the Income-tax Commissioner himself, as envisaged under the provisions of s. 195, Cr. PC, the proceedings are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. However, so far as the offence under s. 277 of the I.T. Act is concerned, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate would continue, because it is mentioned in the complaint itself that this complaint has been filed at the instance of the Income-tax Commissioner, Madras. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of s. 279 of the I.T. Act, since the offence is alleged to have been committed under ss. 277 and 278 of the I.T. Act, a complaint at the instance of the Income-tax Commissioner by a third person is permissible. Therefore, the complaint in this case as regards offences under ss. 277 and 278 of the I.T. Act, has been filed by the proper authority and the proceedings to that extent will continue in the lower court. With the above modification, the petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 1978 (7) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Local Authority

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... one of us (Raghuvir J.) in W. P. No. 80175 dated November 8, 1976, which has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this court on 17th of August, 1977, in W.A. No. 664/76 (Budha Veerinaidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1983 143 ITR 1021). Therefore, we answer this question by holding that the assessee is a local authority. The answer is thus against the Revenue. Since the two decisions declaring the law have been rendered after the reference by the Appellate Tribunal, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1978 (7) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  There was no question of any services being rendered by the three minors and, therefore, the share income received by them must, in substance, be regarded as a return made to the family because of the investment of family funds in the business. In our view, therefore, the taxing authorities as also the Tribunal and the High Court were right in assessing the said income in the hands of the Hindu undivided family-assessee.

  ---

• 1978 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Charitable Purpose - Not Involving the activity for Profit - Whether the income of the assessee was exempt under the provisions of section 11 - some of the objects are charitable and some are not - entire exemption not granted

  ---

• 1978 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Charitable Purpose - General Public Utility - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitiled to exemption under section 11 - business of conducting kuries is held under trust - income from that business is income derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes - appellant is entitled to exemption on the income from the kurie business for the assessment year 1969-70 under section 11(1)(a)

  ---

1 ....678910