Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (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 21 to 40 of 50 Records

• 1967 (12) TMI 30 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Manufacture - Brand name

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e, unable to see how the last part of the Explanation cannot be made applicable to the present case, on the contrary, it clearly and definitely applies. We are not here concerned with the decisions on Trade Mark Law, and we do not think that they need be referred to. But the test of distinctiveness, as laid down in several of these decisions, many of which have been reviewed by us in our recent judgment in L.P.A. No. 106 of 1964 and O.S.A. No. 49 of 1964, could be definitely held established on facts of the present character. Though words like Eucalyptus oil or Nilgiri Thailam (Tamil) which appear to be synonymous expressions are common to the trade, the other features of the carton or label, particularly the photograph, signature and name or initials of the respondent are distinctive, and appear to have been employed strictly within the course of the business. Accordingly, we allow the writ appeal, and discharge the Writ of prohibition. The parties will bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether there be one accomplice or more and that the confessing co-accused cannot be placed higher than an accomplice?

  Held that:- The High Court has very searchingly examined the evidence of Kahinath and applied to it the checks which must always be applied to accomplice evidence before it is accepted. There is corroboration to the evidence of Kashinath in respect of Haroon from the confession of Bengali given independently and in circumstances which exclude any collusion or malpractice. Regard being had to the provisions of Section 133 of the Evidence Act, we do not think that we should interfere in this appeal by special leave, particularly as we hold the same opinion about the veracity of Kashinath. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Tax Liability, Valuation Date, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... shop or office within the State of Punjab. The respondent supplies goods within the State pursuant to orders received and accepted at New Delhi, and, also receives price for the goods within the State. But these are ancillary activities and do not in our judgment amount to carrying on trade within the State of Punjab. We need not refer in detail to cases such as Grainger and Sons v. Gough (3 T.C. 464), F. L. Smidth & Co. v. F. Greenwood( 8 T.C. 193) and Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Lewellin( 37 T.C. 111), which interpret the expression " trade exercised within the United Kingdom " in the English Income Tax Acts, for the merely lay down that for the purpose of the Income Tax Acts, there is no single, decisive or " crucial " test to determine whether the taxpayer exercises trade at a given place. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent has not appeared at the hearing. There will, therefore, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether in computing the taxable expenditure of the assessee Hindu undivided family the sum of ₹ 28,683 being the expenditure incurred by Shri Surendra, the karta of the Hindu undivided family, out of his own self-acquired and separate property was includible in law ?

  Whether in computing the taxable expenditure of the assessee Hindu undivided family the sum of ₹ 10,321 being the amount spent by trustees was includible in law?

  Held that:- For the reasons already set out in dealing with the assessment year 1958-59, that the expenditure incurred by Surendra out of his personal estate is not liable to be included in the taxable expenditure for the year 1959-60. If the amount expended from out of the trust estate be held, for reasons already set out, to be expended by the trustees, the case falls within the terms of clause (i) : if it be held that the expenditure was incurred by or on behalf of the children after the income was received from the trustees it would full within clause (ii). The legislature has by the amended clause (ii) expressly provided that, where the assessee is a Hindu undivided family, any expenditure incurred by any dependant of the assessee, from or out of any income or property transferred directly or indirectly to the dependant by the assessee, is liable to be included. The words are not susceptible of the interpretation that the dependant who incurs the expenditure must be other than the dependant to whom the property is transferred by the assessee. Expenditure incurred for his own purposes by the dependant to whom the property is transferred by the Hindu undivided family clearly falls within section 4(ii) as amended.

  Modify the order of the High Court. The answer to the first question for each year will be in the negative. The answer to the second question will be in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Liability incurred in purchasing the assets - Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of the entire liability from the aggregate value of its assets - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Payment made by the assessee to the Travancore Govt. - expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and ascertained with reference to profits - hence allowable u/s 10

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Expenditure related to lopping of excess growth of the shade trees in the plantation - deduction - allowability

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 23 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Interest paid on loans borrowed for investment in the shares of company - allowable as deduction u/s 12 of the IT Act, 1922

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether on a proper interpretation of the deed of conveyance and the deed of settlement the Tribunal is right in holding that the house property being premises Nos. 46A and 46B, Wellesley Street, Calcutta, is not trust property - question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee holding that the premises are trust property

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee held a large number of shares in an incorporated company by name T Ltd. - excess amount realised on the sale of the assets of T Ltd. - taxability u/s of 2(6A)(c) Indian Income Tax Act, 1922

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Levy of penalty u/s 28(1)(a) r/w s. 18A(9)(b) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... stifiable reason not to act as per the requirements of section 18A(3) for the years commencing from 1950-51. The revenue no doubt concedes that such were the representations made by the respective applicants. The point for determination is whether the authorities including the Tribunal adverted themselves to the material contention of the applicants that there was reasonable cause for the inaction under section 18A(3). As already stated, a specific finding one way or the other is not found in the order of the Tribunal. Whilst therefore answering the question in each of the reference in the affirmative excepting for the assessment year 1953-54 in T.C. No. 11 of 1964, we are of the view that the Tribunal before finalising the proceedings against the applicants do consider the contentions of the respective parties that each of them had reasonable cause in not filing the estimates under section 18A(3) and decide accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs in both the cases.

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Whether the house property standing in the name of the wife of the deceased was correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass on his death - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - assessment of estate - One P died in 1935 leaving his widow and six sons - property - inclusion of property in the estate of the deceased as property passing on death

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 17 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business of manufacture and sale of sugar - Whether the rebate allowed under Notification No.S.R.O. 3419 can be taken into account in fixing the average price of sugarcane under the rule 23 of the rules framed under the IT Act, 1922 - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Winding Up - amount received as consideration for the assignment by the liquidator - this is capital receipt

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee, a society for ex-servicemen engaged in transport of goods and passengers - till 1959-60 the income of such societies was exempt from tax - assessee claimed deduction of depreciation on the original cost of the assets and also an expenditure as for current repairs - assessee's claim is acceptable

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 14 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Lodging of the money in the factory safe-room - it is kept to meet business expenses - Whether the loss due to theft was an allowable deduction - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Account Books - Asst. Accountant-General in his audit report pointed out that the development rebate in respect of machinery purchased and installed had been allowed in the assessment year, though development reserve was not created - whether assessee had created a separate reserve for development rebate, and that at the time of making the claim for allowance of development rebate - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Excess amount realised on the sale of the deferred shares - assessee purchased no further shares at all until it sold its entire shareholding - assessee had failed to prove that it had purchased the deferred shares only with the intention of acquiring a controlling power - hence amount was taxable as income of assessee

  ---

• 1967 (12) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Agreement for avoidance, double taxation between India and Pakistan - salary paid - held that, in whichever capacity partner of the assessee-firm was appointed, the remuneration paid could not be claimed as deduction, because he was serving the firm for remuneration in his capacity as partner

  ---

123