Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1968 1968 (8) 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 61 to 80 of 111 Records

• 1968 (8) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 - Expenditure of wife and minor child having their own separate account - includibility in expenditure of individual

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 50 - ASSAM AND NAGALAND HIGH COURT
  

  Service of notice - Assessee has not been given an opportunity of being heard inasmuch as she was not served with any notice of hearing of these matters. Expiry of 2 years from order sought to be revised - Tribunal was right in holding that the notices to show cause u/s 33B of the IT Act, 1922, and section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1960-61 and 1961-62 were not validly served

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 49 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee owning a rubber plantation - under an agreement, assessee sold all the rubber trees - assessee contend that, even assuming that the amount received by the assessee partly represented the consideration for slaughter tapping of the trees, it did not constitute income - whether tribunal right in holding that there is nothing in the agreement to show that it was a composite agreement of lease and sale

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 48 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Rate applicable for determining the tax chargeable on the trustees

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... dvocate-General was not in a position to point out any such provision to us. It must, therefore, follow that if the amount actually received by Kalpana was rightly excluded from the total income of the trustees for the purpose of chargeability to tax, it must also likewise be excluded from the total income for determination of the rate. The Tribunal was therefore in error in coming to the conclusion that the balance of the income of Rs. 3,977 was chargeable to tax in the hands of the trustees at the rate applicable to a total income of Rs. 6,977. The rate at which tax was liable to be charged was the rate applicable to a total income of Rs. 3,977 which was the total income chargeable to tax in the hands of the trustees. Our answer to the question referred to us therefore is in the negative. The rate at which tax was liable to be charged to the trustees was the rate applicable to a total income of Rs. 3,977. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Dismissal of appeal as time barred - Whether the appeals were rightly dismissed

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y, which the Tribunal could well have taken note of. The Tribunal instead of appreciating the facts felt content by merely saying that there were no reasons at all for the delay. There is another matter on which there was some little debate before us. It relates to the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in view of section 33(2A). Whether, where an appeal is presented out of time, the question of condonation should be heard and disposed of by a petition after notice of the same to the other side or eventually in the appeal itself is a matter to be decided with reference to the language of section 33(2A). On the facts of this case and having reference to the particular frame of the question referred to us, we do not propose to decide that question. We answer the question in favour of the revenue but with no costs. It is obvious that the effect is that the Tribunal will have to take the appeals as having been admitted and proceed to dispose of them in accordance with law.

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 46 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Three trust deeds executed by the assessee's father for the benefit of the assessee, his wife, and his children and grand-children - Whether Tribunal was right in taking the view that the assessee was not directly assessable in respect of the income of the three trusts - Held, yes

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 45 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee, an erstwhile ruler of a state realised profit on sale of Government securities - Is the assessee, by virtue of being a erstwhile ruler of a state immune from taxation on all sorts of income - Held, no

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee who owned power looms permitted by an agreement, another person to use the power looms - user of the machinery was to pay the assessee a fixed sum by way of share of the net profits - said sum was not a payment of lease and hence, was taxable under the head 'Income from Business' and not under the head 'Income from Other Sources'

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 43 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee owned two houses, both of which were self occupied. The assessee claimed a reduction in the annual value in respect of these houses - allowability of claim - further, any income of a trust which is received for the benefit of the wife or the minor child is to be included in the total income of the assessee

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 42 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Income Tax Officer rejected the accounts - Method of accounting, having been accepted in the earlier years and the income, having been computed in the same manner as in the earlier years, there is no reason why the same should be rejected in the current year

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 41 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Dissolution of firm - Interest on borrowed money - allowability as deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ision. We are in complete agreement with that interpretation of section 10(4)(b). It was then argued that the borrowings made in Bombay for which Rs. 66,644 was paid by way of interest were borrowings made for the assessee and not for the Bombay concern and that, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the allowance claimed. The Bombay concern was an independent one. It had ceased to be a part of the assessee s business by July 15, 1957. There is nothing to indicate that the assessee had either expressly or impliedly authorised the Bombay concern to borrow money on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, it has to be taken that the borrowings made by the Bombay concern were for its own sake and not for the assessee. For the reasons mentioned above we answer the question that has been referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. We make no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Madras Estates Abolition Act - income-tax arrears and of penalty - appellant in the appeals is the Union of India who is creditor in respect of tax, any penalty, both interim and final - disallowed the claim of the Union as against interim payments - petition is allowed

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 39 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - assessee showed income by way of rent of building occupied by some of his employees and claimed depreciation and repairs thereon - plantations of assessee had not reached the stage of production - assessee had several houses and showed income only on letting out a few of such houses - Whether depreciation and repairs for all houses is allowable - Held, yes

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 38 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Lease money - allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 10(2)(xv) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... estion was a capital expense. That case proceeded on its own peculiar facts. Suffice it to say that neither the decision in Pingle Industries case nor the decision of the Lahore High Court were either discussed or considered therein. Mr, Awasthy then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., for the contention that we should permit him to urge the contention that because the land was taken for cultivation purposes, therefore, it is an asset of an enduring nature. Again, this decision does not help the learned counsel. In that case, the new contention was implicit in the question referred. That is not so, so far as the present case is concerned. For the reasons recorded above, we return the answer to the question referred in the negative. In other words, the sum of Rs. 5,934 was an expenditure of a revenue nature and not a capital expenditure. We make no order as to costs. Question answered in the negative.

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Proceedings u/s 34(1)(a) - Income-tax Officer is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to section 34(3) and the notices under section 34(1) reopening the assessments must be held to be barred by limitation

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 36 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Act of 1961 - Act of 1922 - Notice issued u/s 148 - time limit - held that if the right of the respondents to reassess the petitioner for the year 1948-49 became barred by time under the 1922 Act, such a proceeding cannot be initiated under the 1961 Act

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 35 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee public limited company owns a five star luxury hotel - expenditure on linen and blankets and expenditure on the uniforms expenditure incurred on the initial issue of linen, blankets and uniforms was expenditure on the initial equipment of the income earning apparatus and was therefore, not a permissible deduction u/s 10(2)(xv)

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Managing agency remuneration - remuneration was a liability of year ending June 30, 1956 and June 30, 1957, though the approval was obtained only in 1957. Therefore the disallowance in the A.Y. 1958-59 was proper

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Levy of penalties on the family after its disruption - validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... was, speaking for the Division Bench in Subba Rao and Nageswara Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax , held ............ that, though section 25A of the Income-tax Act makes the divided members of a Hindu undivided family jointly and severally liable for the tax payable by the undivided family there is no provision in the Income-tax Act authorising the taxing authorities to levy a penalty on the members of a family after they have become divided in respect of concealment of income of the family, and that the penalty imposed could not, therefore, be recovered from the two members after the disruption of the family. We have in more places than one pointed out that to sustain such a penalty would be to ignore totally the impinge, content and legal effect of the order recognising the partition in the family as evidenced by the deed of partition dated April 23, 1956. In the result the query is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1968 (8) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Section 271(1)(c) - inaccurate particulars - penalty proceedings - validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... isfactory nature or falsity of the explanation given by the assessee but a case where a device or a deliberate disguise was created by the assessee for the purpose of concealing the income and then failing to furnish particulars of his income derived from Messrs. Kohinoor Grain Mills Sales Depot. Under these circumstances, the decision in L. H. Vora s case cannot help the assessee and there were sufficient materials on the record of the case for the authorities levying the penalty to come to the conclusion that there was concealment of income or furnishing of false particulars by the assessee. Under these circumstances, the second contention urged by Mr. Kaji on behalf of the assessee must fail. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as follows Question. Answer 1. In the affirmative, but as observed above, the penalty proceedings for assessment year 1961-62 were invalid. 2. In the affirmative. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner.

  ---

123456