Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1965 1965 (12) 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 81 to 87 of 87 Records

• 1965 (12) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Partition - business assets received - ready gold account was not kept separate. The closing balance each year in the gold account was worked out at the end of each year by taking all the debt and credit entries in the entire gold account and treating them as one - held that the sale of three patlas of gold amounted to business so that any excess of the sale proceeds over the cost price could represent the assessable profit

  ---

• 1965 (12) TMI 6 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Mining Lease - Salami paid for running lease - income - assessability

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ld, therefore, reframe the question in the following terms Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,20,000 or any portion thereof was the income of the assessee assessable to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act ? And having reframed the question, I would answer it as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, a sum of Rs. 20,000 included within the disputed sum of Rs. 2,20,000 was a payment on capital account and as such not assessable to income-tax, whereas the remaining sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was a revenue receipt of the assessee and assessable to income-tax as such. In the result, the question referred to this court is answered partly in favour of the assessee but substantially in favour of the department. Since the assessee has substantially failed, he must pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner of Income-tax hearing fee Rs. 250. UNTWALIA J.- I entirely agree.

  ---

• 1965 (12) TMI 5 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Money sent to Commission agent through an employee was lost through a highway robbery - whether such loss would be allowable as a trading loss

  ---

• 1965 (12) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether writ can be issued to the Central Government when an application had been made to the Central Board of Direct Taxes for exemption from super tax

  ---

• 1965 (12) TMI 3 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessable profits of the assessee-company - inflation in the value of the opening stock - in the books of the vendor firm, the value of the stock-in-trade was shown at Rs. 1,77,285 as on the 31st July, 1956, while in the books of the assessee-company the value of the said stock-in-trade was shown at Rs. 2,10,285 - additions made by AO

  ---

• 1965 (12) TMI 2 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Petition for quashing and setting aside a notice under section 148 read with section 147(b) - validity

  ---

• 1965 (12) TMI 1 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
  

  notice under section 34 - service of the notice - validity - contention that law as copy of the notice was not affixed at any conspicuous place in the court-house or at any conspicuous place in the income-tax office

  ---

12345