Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1966 1966 (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 81 to 100 of 107 Records

• 1966 (9) TMI 27 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - validity of partnership - registration

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... claim for division. On the death of the widow, her estate devolves on her heirs. From our above conclusion, it follows that Seshmull s share in family properties devolved on Anoop Kunwar on the death of the former on 15th September 1955. But at that time she obtained only a life interest in the same. But she became the full owner of that interest on 17th June, 1956. Hence, when she and her adopted son Jugraj entered into a partnership on 5th September, 1959, she had a definite interest of her own in the partnership assets. That being the position, the partnership entered into is valid partnership. That would be so even if she had only a life interest in the estate taken by her. For the reasons mentioned above, our answer to the question referred to us is that, on the facts and in the Circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the registration should be granted to the firm. The assessee is entitled to his costs of this reference. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Notice under section 139(2) requiring the assessee to file the return - legallity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ved with notice under sub-section (2). This provision of law applies to all assessees without distinction and no question of discrimination therefore arises. No doubt, in individual cases it is conceivable that unfair discrimination may be practised by the Income-tax Officer in the implementation of these provisions of law by mala fide curtailing the time allowed to one assessee for the submission of his return, while giving more latitude to another. But no material has been adduced in the present case to establish any such plea. The result is that we see no force in either of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. We see no reason to hold that sub-section (2) of section 139 can operate only after the expiry of the period prescribed by sub-section (1) nor do we find that sub-section (2) infringes article 14. This writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. The stay order granted by this court on August 12, 1964, is vacated. Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 25 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Additions - Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had rejected the books maintained by the assessee - held that there was no material for the Tribunal to apply the proviso to section 13 and to add the sum as income

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Jurisdiction of ITO to reopen an assessment for the purpose of reassessment u/s 147

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... letter or in the affidavit that the petitioner has failed or omitted to disclose these primary or basic facts at the time of his assessment, I do not consider it will be right or proper for me to presume that these facts had not been disclosed or discussed at the time when the assessment of the petitioner was made by the officer. I am, therefore, unable to hold in the facts and circumstances of this case that there has been any failure or omission on the part of the petitioner to disclose any primary or basic fact. In the result, I must hold that the conditions laid down in section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act are not satisfied, as no failure or omission on the part of the petitioner to disclose any basic or primary facts is established in the instant case. It must, therefore, follow that in the instant case the Income-tax Officer has no power or jurisdiction to reopen the assessment of the petitioner. The rule is, therefore, made absolute. There will be no order as to costs

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessee`s claim to set off his share of the loss from the unregistered firm separately assessed to tax was rightly disallowed in view of the second proviso to section 24(1) of the IT Act, 1922 - held, yes

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Non-payment of penalty - Whether further penalty could be imposed - yes

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ed by that court on the decisions of the Supreme Court in C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, and in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhikaji Dadabhai and Co. With great respect we do not think that the interpretation placed by the Allahabad High Court on the decisions of the Supreme Court is correct. The Income-tax Act makes a distinction between a tax and a penalty. The word it assessment used in the statute may, however, cover penalty proceedings as it does sometimes denote the whole procedure for imposing a liability of tax payable and that, we think, is all that has been decided by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to. We adhere to the view taken in M. M. Mathew v. Second Additional Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, and in Padmanabha Menon Krishna Menon v. Commissioner of Income-tax and in that view, the order, exhibit P-8, cannot stand. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order, exhibit P-8. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 21 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Tribunal was right in holding that the sum spent in the litigation over alleged infringement of patent rights was an expenditure allowable under s. 10(2)(xv) of the IT Act.

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 20 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Net wealth - House Property - fair market value

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... has to pay wealth-tax in respect of the same. Mr. Bhat, the learned counsel for the assessee, wanted us to direct the Wealth-tax Officer to keep the assessment proceedings in abeyance. He did not invite our attention to any provision in the Act which permits such a course. The fact that such a course is possible to be adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer is no ground for us to direct him to do so. All that we are concerned in this case is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the property s fair market value in the net wealth of the assessee was justified or, in other words, was in accordance with law. We are of the opinion that the inclusion of the market value of the property in question is in accordance with law and, therefore, it is justified. In the result, our answer to the question referred to us is against the assessee. The assessee to pay the costs of the department. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Question answered against the assessee.

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 19 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee entered into a contract for supply of coal to Japan - commission paid - There was nothing by way of advantage of any enduring benefit in that transaction; neither the assessee obtained any monopoly rights nor any abnormal concessions in regard to the supply of coal in that country or to their purchasers - entire commission is allowable as a deduction under s. 10(2)(xv)

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Payment was made to compensate a person for cancellation of a contract - not affect the trading structure of the assessee`s business - termination of the contract was normal incident of the business and that such cancellation left the assessee free to carry on his trade freed from the contract terminated - so it was a revenue recipt - assessable to tax

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 17 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee produced vanaspati vegetable oil. Their directors and principal officers were prosecuted - held that sum incurred in defending the criminal proceedings against the company and its officers was a permissible deduction for the purpose of computing the profits and gains of the assessee`s business

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Cash credits - income from undisclosed source - taxability

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of the Supreme Court decision in Govindarajulu Mudaliar s case. The legal inference therefore could have legitimately been drawn by the Tribunal, from the assessee s failure to satisfactorily prove the source, nature and character of the sum of Rs. 18,005, that it was income from an undisclosed source and as such assessable in the relevant assessment year 1947-48. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is not possible to say that such an inference could not have been drawn by any person duly instructed in the law. It was a possible inference and the Tribunal not having misdirected itself, it cannot be said that the Tribunal acted illegally in treating the sum as liable to tax for the assessment year 1947-48. For the reasons given above, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference which we assess at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is also assessed at Rs. 200. Question answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 15 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO, while passing the order u/s 155 of the Act, was not justified in treating the share income of profit from the partnership firms as unearned

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 14 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making payment of tax - some steps are necessary to be taken by ITO before the ITO can come to the decision that the assessee is in default and a penalty should be imposed upon him

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 13 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Current repairs - cost of installation of diesel engines in the place of petrol engines of the existing buses - allowable deduction u/s 10(2)(v)as revenue expenditure

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 12 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessee could impress the character of a joint family property on the property separately owned by him only for the benefit of himself and his sons constituting a separate HUF to the exclusion of his father notwithstanding the fact that the HUF consisted of the assessee, his father and his sons - held, yes

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment u/s. 34 of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922- validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ction 34, it will not matter whether such an assessment is completed within the period of four years or within the additional period of one year provided under section 34 of the Act. The Supreme Court in Y. Narayana Chetty v. Income-tax Officer, Nellore, held that If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid then the validity of the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void. The notice under section 34 was undoubtedly an illegal notice as a voluntary return was already in existence. The subsequent proceedings under that section and culminating in the assessment cannot be anything else but illegal and void. For the reasons given above, we would answer the question referred in the negative and against the department. The department will pay the costs to the assessee which we assess at Rs. 200. The counsel s fee is also assessed at Rs. 200. Question answered in the negative

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 10 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Deemed income - section 10(2)(vii) - surplus of Rs. 37,385 arising from the sale of plant and machinery of an ice factory

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Rejection of review application on merely technical grounds was not justified

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... in the circumstances, there was nothing left to be decided on merits. The application dated February 21, 1964, did not state that the objection was being unconditionally withdrawn. It stated that the objection should be considered as withdrawn if the petitioner was allowed to deposit the balance of the purchase money. In any event, whatever the ground, it is plain that the Tax Recovery Officer did not apply his mind at all to the first review application. It is well settled that a second review application is maintainable if the earlier review application has not been considered on its merits at all see Langat Singh v. Janki Koer and K. Venkatasubbayya v. K. Virayya. Upon these considerations the petition must succeed. The petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari shall issue quashing the order dated September 21, 1965. The Tax Recovery Officer shall proceed to decide the second review application afresh. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition allowed

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 8 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, could the assessee be said to have gifted properties to his sons which attracted tax under the Gift-tax Act

  ---

123456