Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1991 1991 (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 221 to 227 of 227 Records

• 1991 (10) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  New Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 976-77, it was eight years, and so on and so forth. The delay was, thus, inordinate and the grounds on which condonation of delay was sought in preferring the petition under section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner were not sufficient to grant the prayer of the appellants. Ignorance of law was pleaded as the first ground for claiming condonation of delay. Ignorance of law is no excuse. The appellants have failed to satisfactorily explain the cause for delay and the Commissioner of Income-tax, therefore, rightly held that, in the absence of proper explanation for the delay, the request for condonation of delay could not be granted. The learned single judge, therefore, rightly held that the exercise of discretion by the Commissioner of Income-tax in refusing to condone the delay did not merit any interference. Thus, for what we have said above, we find that there is no cause to interfere. The writ appeals fail and are dismissed. There shall, however, no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1991 (10) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment, Residuary Legatee, Specific Legatee, Wealth Tax, Will, Writ

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... already entertained the petition and issued a rule nisi and interim order affidavits have been filed and the matter heard at length. It is well established that the court would not in the circumstances be justified in rejecting the petition on the ground of alternative remedy. ( L. Hirday Narain v. ITO 1970 78 ITR 26 (SC) AIR 1971 SC 33). In any event, the assessments of the residuary estate of Sir R. N. Mukherjee (deceased) in the hands of Mahamaya and the petitioners before completion of the administration of the estate is without jurisdiction and the court would not be justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was available (Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, AIR 1987 SC 2186). The impugned assessment orders for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1975-76 and all proceedings thereunder are accordingly liable to be set aside and are hereby quashed. The rule nisi is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1991 (10) TMI 5 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Voluntary Disclosure, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... djudication. The orders of the Tribunal might perhaps have some relevance in appreciating the case of the respondent, as set out in annexure G complaint. It cannot be readily assumed that the allegations against the petitioners are unsustainable. Some important questions of law are involved in the case. The factual aspects also call for detailed consideration. Having failed before the court below to get an order of discharge and after having been unsuccessful to get an order from this court to quash the proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 882 of 1988, it is too late for the petitioners now to contend that the proceedings now pending before the court below amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and, therefore, should be quashed. The complaint has to be enquired into and decided on its merits. Interference now under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would neither be just, legal or proper. The criminal miscellaneous case is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 1991 (10) TMI 4 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Delay In Filing Return

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... every month during which the default continues Provided that, before levying any such penalty, the person shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The learned single judge held that section 17A(3) of the Act contemplates levy of penalty for non-payment of admitted tax or for non-payment of part of the admitted tax at the time of filing the return. On a plain reading of the section 17A(3) of the Act, we concur with the learned single judge (see 1991 190 ITR 385), in the reasoning and conclusion aforesaid. The order levying penalty, exhibit P-4, and the order confirming the same, exhibit P-6, to the extent they uphold the penalty levied under section 17A(3) of the Act for the belated filing of the return, are unjustified in law. The learned single judge (see 1991 190 ITR 385) was justified in quashing exhibits P-4 and P-6. We concur with the learned single judge (see 1991 190 ITR 385), and hold that the appeal is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 1991 (10) TMI 3 - SC ORDER
  

  Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that relief under section 80G is admissible in respect of donations in kind also - held that deduction is not entitled u/s 80G to donation made in kind

  ---

• 1991 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that half share of the income in respect of the estate of late Shri Balabhai Damodardas was not taxable in the hands of the assessee when the estate was being administered by Shri Sakarlal Balabhai, having regard to the provisions of section 168 - it is difficult to accept the conclusion of the High Court that the administration must be deemed to have come to an end in the face of the factual findings

  ---

• 1991 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Claim for registration as firm - Whether there was a valid partnership under annexure 'A' between Shri Chandrakant, as the karta of the Hindu undivided family and Shri Naresh, a member of the family - firm consisting of Hindu undivided family and a member can claim for registration even if member has not contributed any capital as a partner

  ---

1 ....89101112