Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1985 1985 (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 221 to 230 of 230 Records

• 1985 (9) TMI 10
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... eration of the facts and circumstances on record has estimated the market value of the closing stock by giving deduction of 35 in the export invoice value. In our opinion, the said finding of the Tribunal is purely a finding of fact and it does not involve a question of law for reference to this court. As regards question No. 2, which relates to the provisions of section 18 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, it may be stated that no argument on the basis of the provisions of section 18 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was advanced by the Revenue before the Tribunal and it cannot, therefore, be said that the question arises out of the order of the Tribunal. With regard to question No. 3, Mr. Surolia had contended that the said question is dependent on question No. 1 and if question No. 1 cannot be referred, question No. 3 also cannot be referred. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no force in these petitions and they are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (9) TMI 9
  

  Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Reference

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... fession . We are, therefore, of opinion that a question of law does arise so far as it relates to the question of allowing entertainment expenditure incurred by the assessee in all the three years under consideration. However, we would like to reframe the question so as to clarify the matter and bring out clearly the dispute which requires consideration by this court. We, therefore, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following question of law arising out of its order dated May 12, 1981, to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing expenditure incurred by the assessee in providing tea, coffee and other customary hospitality to its customers ? It would be open to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to make a consolidated reference in respect of all the three years under consideration, if it so likes. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1985 (9) TMI 8
  

  Business, Income, Profits Chargeable To Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Bans Co. 1983 144 ITR 46 (MP). Further, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd. 1972 83 ITR 211 has held that a sale contemplates a seller and a purchaser, and if a person revalues his goods and shows a higher value for them in his books, he cannot be considered as having sold those goods and made profit therefrom. Nor can a person, by handing over his goods to partnership of which he is a partner as his share of the capital, be considered as having sold the goods to the partnership. In the view taken above, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, our answer to the questions referred to us is as follows That the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in deleting the amount of Rs. 38.770 and also was right in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow depreciation. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (9) TMI 7
  

  Partner introduced capital asset to firm by crediting market price of asset in the firm's books - whether the capital contribution by a partner to the assets of a partnership firm at an appreciated value can be said to give rise to a capital gain in his hands liable to income-tax - held that there was a transfer of the shares - held that when the assessee transferred his shares, he received no consideration as per s. 48 nor did any profit or gain accrue to him as per section 45

  ---

• 1985 (9) TMI 6
  

  On the death of partner, widow joined as partner three days later - hold that though there was no formal deed for four days, there was no vacuum in the succession. The wife, the assessee, of the deceased partner, could not get out of the obligation to share in the partnership and she had indeed the right to a share in the partnership. Similarly, the other partners did not have any right to deny her that right - widow is entitled to set off the share of speculation loss of the deceased husband

  ---

• 1985 (9) TMI 5
  

  Is it necessary to allow development rebate in the fresh assessment and then cancel it by rectification - High Court took the view that the Tribunal was not justified in law in directing the Income-tax Officer first to allow the development rebate under the rules and subsequently withdraw it under section 35(l1) - High Court was right in answering the question in favour of the Revenue

  ---

• 1985 (9) TMI 4
  

  Did the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax have the power to rectify his predecessor's order dated June 26, 1970, in view of the fact that there was no error apparent on the face of the record because the question as to whether the Amending Act applied to assessments which were already completed was a debatable question - Appeal of revenue is allowed and the rectification order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored

  ---

• 1985 (9) TMI 3
  

  Partial Partition In HUF - partial partition of the business was affected on the last day of the previous year 1949-50 and a partnership was formed with effect from the next day - Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the relief under section 25(4) in in the year 1949-50

  ---

• 1985 (9) TMI 2
  

  Assessee received large amounts as donations for sponsoring and helping the movement of spreading the Christian religion by publishing a daily newspaper - assessee carried on a vocation and the amounts were received in the course of such vocation -there is a nexus between the activities of the assessee and payments received by him - therefore they are not in the nature of casual and non-recurring receipts, and they are taxable

  ---

• 1985 (9) TMI 1
  

  Income derived by the two assessees as beneficiaries under the deed of wakf executed by their grandfather in 1942 ; the subject-matter of the wakf was bidi business - In the hands of the assessee, who is a mutawalli, the income is to be assessed under " other sources " as business belongs to the wakf - Since it is only after distribution from the wakf, that the assessee receives the income as a beneficiary, he is not entitled to earned income relief u/s 2(6AA).

  ---

1 ....89101112