Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1968 1968 (2) 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 41 to 60 of 80 Records

• 1968 (2) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
  

  Winding up - Preferential payments

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ically mention that the amount due is entitled to priority under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act or under the Companies Act. This, however, is a mere technical objection which could not debar the claim for priority advanced by the appellant. The priority is to be given under the mandatory provisions of section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956, by the official liquidator. However, as the claim was not set out expressly as a claim which had priority, the official liquidator is right in contending that he had no opportunity to consider this aspect. Therefore, no costs of this appeal can be allowed. The result is that I allow this appeal and direct that the claim of the appellant will be treated as a preferential claim within the meaning of section 530 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The order of the official liquidator is modified to that extent. I, however, make no order as to costs. A copy of this order may be given to the official liquidator free of cost.

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Winding up - Powers and duties of liquidator

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the company in the conduct of the suit the company was, before liquidation, acting through its directors, and would now act, during liquidation, through the liquidators. That is all. Why amendment then, I ask again. An amendment is called for, when a change in the contents of the pleading is called for not when a change of the agency, in the conduct either Of the suit or of the defence takes place, the suit itself undergoing no change, but remaining what it was. I may, therefore, reject the amendment prayed for, without any party being any the worse or better for it. But I need not do so, since it is a routine procedural matter and assists the convenience of all in getting to know from the plaint ex facie who the liquidators are, entrusted with the carriage of the suit. In the result, I order that the petition for amendment be allowed in terms of prayers (a) and ( b) of the Master s summons. Amendment be carried out within a fortnight from the filing of this order. No costs.

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
  

  Compromise and arrangement

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... old that (i)The period of lease was ten years and no more which expired on July15, 1966. That being so, the lease did not stand automatically extended beyond ten years and the Fibres are not liable to pay any dues of the Corporation beyond the stipulated period of ten years. (ii)The other disputes between the parties stand decided in terms of our orders dated January 18, 1968 and February 5, 1968, which were passed with the consent of the counsel for the parties concerned. (iii)The remuneration and expenses of the receiver shall be borne by the Fibres and the company half and half and the receivership shall terminate on completion of our directions contained in the aforesaid orders dated January 18, 1968 and February 5, 1968 which should be carried out within one month from today (or such further time as may be allowed by this Bench). (iv)In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs of these appeals. We decide these three appeals in the above terms.

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Meetings and proceedings - Presumptions to be drawn where minutes duly drawn and signed

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... cepted as such by the petitioner company. In these circumstances, the petitioner company s right to enforce payment against the father of the respondent was lost and it could thereafter look to the respondent alone for payment of its dues. Reliance was placed in this connection by the learned counsel on section 41 of the Contract Act. The argument appears to me to be wholly devoid of merit. It is not the petitioner s own case that by the undertaking given the respondent was substituted as a debtor in place of his father. If that were so there was hardly any reason to deduct a sum of Rs. 50 every month out of the commission payable by the petitioner company to the respondent s father. Moreover it is the voucher, exhibit P.2, which is the foundation of the petitioner s case against the respondent and not the letter, exhibit P.4, which was obviously written almost a month before the voucher, exhibit P.2. The result is that the revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 36 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether what he actually produces by combusting limestone with coke is carbon dioxide?

  Whether it is compressed carbon dioxide as contemplated by Item 14-H?

  Held that:- The mere fact that at one stage or the other kiln gas is pressed at 40 to 45 lbs. per sq. inch by a pump or otherwise cannot mean that it is compressed carbon dioxide. At the same time the duty being on manufacture and not on sale the mere fact that kiln gas generated by these concerns is not actually sold would not make any difference if what they generate and use in their manufacturing processes is carbon dioxide. The fact that the gas so generated has carbon dioxide below 99 per cent and does not conform to the specifications of the Indian Standard Institution also would not matter for the gas may be sub-standard, provided what is produced is carbon dioxide.

  Thus the gas generated by these concerns is kiln gas and no carbon dioxide as known to the trade i.e. to those who deal in it or who use it. The kiln gas in question therefore is neither carbon dioxide nor compressed carbon dioxide known as such to the commercial community and therefore cannot attract Item 14-H in the First Schedule. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Remuneration paid to the managing director and a director – claim under section 10(2)(xv) – held that assessee is entitled to the full allowance of the entire payment made as remuneration

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 34 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Notice issued u/s 148 to HUF to determine the ownership of the gold and to bring the escaped income to tax in proper hands - reason for the issuance of notices - notice cannot be held to be mala fide

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 33 - ASSAM AND NAGALAND HIGH COURT
  

  Petitioners were charged to income-tax on 40% of the income and to agricultural income-tax in respect of the balance of income of 60% - proviso of Assam Act are in conformity with the IT Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and therefore cannot be struck down as unconstitutional - therefore, no exception can be taken to the assessment made against the petitioners under the Assam Act and they are liable to pay agricultural income-tax as assessed under the Act

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 32 - ASSAM AND NAGALAND HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - on the death of a partner, his widow and minor son were admitted as partners - partnership deed - Partnership Act provides that a minor cannot be admitted otherwise than for the benefits of the partnership - held that minor son and the widow were not partners jointly and therefore their individual shares need not be specified

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Amount paid for termination of managing agency agreement - held that payment made for the termination of the managing agency was an allowable deduction u/s 10(2)(xv) in computing the total income of the assessee-company

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee was banking company and has been assessed as a non-resident - interest were received by the assessee in the UK from Corporation, which was a company incorporated in England and was carrying on business in Calcutta - Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of s. 42(1) of the IT Act, 1922, had no application to the interest received on overdraft granted to Corporation

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Loss from sale of shares - allowability

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... mselves which justify only one conclusion that the sales were and ought to have been genuine. The Tribunal has not stated that Naraindas and Company is a non-existing entity or the cheque passed by it for Rs. 50,000 was a make believe and that actually no money passed under the sale of 20,000 shares to the assessee. This observation applies also to the sale of the other lot of 12,000 shares. We have already indicated that we are not prepared to accept the argument for the revenue that the Tribunal s conclusion in respect of the genuineness of the sales is a factual one which should be taken as conclusive before us in this reference. We would reiterate that, as pointed out by Griffiths v. J. P. Harrison (Watford) Ltd., a factual finding of a Tribunal cannot be disturbed in a reference, but if, upon a reasonable view of the facts, that conclusion could not reasonably be entertained, the bar has no application. We answer the question in favour of the assessee with costs Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Business expenditure - whether spent wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee - allowability

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Amounts deposited by the assessee with the Govt. of India in the shape of cash and/or Govt. securities - not entitled to relief u/s 5(2) of the WT Act

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 26 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Jurisdiction of Tax Recovery Officer

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t aside. The mere fact that the sale is subject to confirmation by the Tax Recovery Officer does not mean that the Tax Recovery Officer has the discretion to refuse to confirm the sale even if there is no application to set it aside. His jurisdiction to ref use to confirm a sale arises only if there is an application either under rule 60 or rule 61 to set aside the sale and not otherwise. In the present case it is admitted that the petitioner complied with all the requirements of law for perfecting his sale and that there is no impediment whatever for confirmation of the sale. There is admittedly no application to set aside the sale and it was the duty of the Tax Recovery Officer to confirm the sale. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Tax Recovery Officer setting aside the sale and the appellate order of the Collector confirming the order of the Tax Recovery Officer are hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100.

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment - assessee having made it clear in his return that he was the holder of the share, and not having said that he was not liable to tax in respect of it, the ITO should have investigated the true position and not adjourned the proceeding - finding of the Tribunal that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessments for relevant assessment years is incorrect

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Return rejected - Where an assessee claims to carry over business loss and at the same time carry over unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate, they have all to be included in one return - as the return was filed out of time so far as sub-section (2A) of section 22 is concerned, his client would not be entitled to the benefit of carry forward of the business loss for the year

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Tax had not been paid even up to the time the appeals were disposed of by the AAC - AAC was right in holding that the two appeals fell within the prohibition contained in the proviso to s. 30(1) of the Act, and that the two appeals were incompetent

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Rectification - HC - Whether the period of 4 years, prescribed for rectification u/s 35(1) had expired, the High Court had power to issue a writ directing the ITO to make the necessary rectification - Held, yes

  ---

• 1968 (2) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  IT Act 1922 - IT Act 1961 - Whether persons filing returns before and after commencement of new Act was justifiable classification

  ---

1234