Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1969 1969 (1) 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 64 Records

• 1969 (1) TMI 24 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Burden Of Proof

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y to pay tax in respect of a transaction of gift made by him and the burden of proving facts which entitled him to the exemption lay upon the respondent. We are unable to agree that the question as to the liability or otherwise of the respondent to pay the tax could be determined by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal without even looking at the deed of gift. We direct that the Tribunal be called upon to submit a supplementary statement of case and annex therewith the deed of gift dated February 3, 1960, executed by the respondent in favour of the children. After the supplementary statement is received by this court the appeal will be placed for hearing. Mr. Pal on behalf of the respondent has contended that the appellant should be called upon to pay the costs of this hearing, because it is on account of the laches of the appellant that this adjournment is necessitated. We do not think that at this stage we would be justified in passing any order relating to costs.

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948 - Whether arrears of rent of 1359F. and earlier years realised in 1360F. are to be included in the agricultural income of the assessee since under the amended law he was not required to own or hold property in the assessment year - whether income from groves was agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Best Judgment Assessment on ground of non-compliance with the various notices - ITO not proved that there has been any non-compliance with any of the notices - therefore, order of assessment in the present case must be struck down

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - determining the total value of the gift u/s 6

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... g to an interest therein or easement thereon, such right or obligation may be enforced against a transferee with notice thereof or a gratuitous transferee of the property affected thereby, but not against transferee for consideration and without notice of the right or obligation nor against such property in his hands. This is a registered document. In that view of the matter and reading the document as a whole, it seems to us that the document is capable of being construed either as onerous gift liable to be defeated by non-payment by the donee of Rs. 20,000 or as an obligation arising out of contract annexed to the ownership of this property. Viewed in either way, this will certainly affect the market value of the property gifted. In that view of the matter, we are of opinion that the Tribunal was right in arriving at the conclusion against the revenue. In the premises the question is answered in the affirmative. Commissioner to pay costs of this reference. DEB J.--I agree.

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 20 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Leviability of penalty u/s 28(1)(c)

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ge from the Tribuual s order and the passage shows that the Tribunal approached the problem from the point of view that in the earlier decision the Tribunal was influenced by the unsatisfactory explanation of Faqir Chand s deposit, which deposit had no relevance in the relevant year. It is possible that my decision on facts may have been different. It is equally possible that if I were sitting as a court of appeal I may have come to the same conclusion. But the factual controversy is not before me. What calls for my decision is whether the Tribunal could on facts come to the conclusion to which it did. I need say no more than this that the Tribunal s view on facts is a possible one, namely, that the moneys were taxed in the hands of the assessee on the footing that his explanation was not correct. In this view, I must answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, however, I will leave the parties to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Unabsorbed depreciation - carry forward

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e its cost to him at the time of partition, whether mentioned in the partition deed or ascertained aliunde. and expressed dissent with the view taken by the Nagpur High Court in Mohta s case. A partner is owner of the entire partnership assets. As held by the Tribunal, the valuation of the property was not notional but real and that was the basis for allocating properties to different partners. Adjustment was made by payment of Rs. 4,35,000 in cash by the assessee to the other partner with a view to equalising their shares. In the circumstances, the cost of the property to the assessee on the date of the partition would be the value given to it for the purposes of allotment. My answer to the second question, therefore, is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee subject to the correction that the sum of Rs. 6,20,000 will be read as Rs. 6,00,000. In the circumstances, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. JAGJIT SINGH J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Unadjusted development rebate in respect of new machineries installed - set off against the profits and carry forward the unadjusted rebate to the later years

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Company - industrial profits - liability of assessee-company to pay the additional super-tax under s. 23A

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Notice u/s 34 was issued to HUF by the ITO, wherein it was stated that he had reason to believe that the income of the HUF assessable to income-tax had been under-assessed - validity of the notice

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 15 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Motor car - determining the amount of depreciation to be allowed - determining the original cost - Tribunal was right in rejecting the department`s contention that as only half the motor car was treated as having been used for the purpose of the assessee`s business, only half the original cost of the motor car was to be taken as the original cost

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee-company - industrial Company - exemption under s. 45(d)

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... activity in pursuance of the following sub-clauses in the memorandum must be treated as ancillary and minor activity. That, in my opinion, is not the test. If a company, under its memorandum is entitled to engage in different activities, it may decide to carry on the activity contained not in the first clause but in the latter clauses. If that activity be a manufacturing activity it will not be possible to suggest in that event that the company is not engaged in manufacturing activity. As a matter of fact, the last paragraph in clause III of the memorandum provides that each of the objects clauses should be read independently. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture, production or processing of goods or articles within the Explanation to section 45(d) and, therefore, qualified for the exemption. I would, therefore, answer the question in the negative and against the revenue. The assessee will have its costs which are fixed at Rs. 200.

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Notices u/s 34(1)(A) - Assesment procedings against the company - returns filed before the ITO, were not valid returns as they are not filed before the competent ITO - therefore action could be taken against the company u/s 34(1)(a) by the ITO, by issuing a notice

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 12 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Leviability of special surcharge on income from dividends

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... provided in the Schedule. It is not disputed that in the case of the assessee Paragraph A of the First Schedule of the Finance Act, 1957, applies. Under this provision of section 2(1)(a) of the Finance Act which is made subject to sub-section (3) of that section, the assessee is entitled to claim that the income-tax on his dividend income should be calculated by applying the rate or rates as prescribed in the Finance Act, 1956, but he cannot claim that the amount of income-tax so determined should not be increased by five per cent. to add the surcharge and by fifteen per cent. to add special surcharge calculated in the manner provided under the heading surcharges on income-tax in the First Schedule of the Finance Act, 1957. In our opinion, the assessing authority has rightly imposed special surcharge on the dividend income of the assessee in this case. For the reasons given above, the question referred to us is replied in the affirmative. Question answered in the affirmative.

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Competency of Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) to pass one single order in the three appeals filed for different years

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Allowance of interest on borrowed capital

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he capital or any portion thereof remains unpaid and interest is added and on this sum, further interest is charged, it is interest on what? When the unpaid interest has been capitalized and added to the original capital or part thereof is it still interest on such original capital or is it interest on something else? If it is interest on something else then in our opinion it does not come within the provision for allowance under clause (iv) of section 9(1) of the said Act. It is clear that in this case what has happened is that the remaining unpaid portion of interest has been capitalized and what is being claimed is interest on that. So, even though it is interest, it is not interest on such capital . In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the decision arrived at by the Tribunal was right and the question must be answered by saying that the interest allowable was Rs. 18,000 and not Rs. 38,221. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference. DEB J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee disclosed in return made by him a loss which absorbed the capital gains - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gains is liable to capital gains tax - Held, no - Whether capital gains can be set off against loss incurred under any other head of income - Held, yes

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Tea Company - sum being large land holdings tax are not admissible deductions while computing the business income of the assessee-company - tax paid by the assessee in respect of the tax due from the assessee under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957, is not allowable u/s 10(2)(xv) of the IT Act, 1922

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee, a manufacturer collected a percentage of the sale price towards charity but not spent that amount towards charity - Are the collections towards charity, the income of the assessee - Tribunal have not applied their mind as to whether the collections were contributed voluntarily and with a view to creating a trust - intention of the giver is important to decide whether the contributions would form part of the income of the assessee - case remanded

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 6 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Net wealth - Can the assessee be assessed to wealth tax on the basis of the balance sheet without debiting to the assets the depreciation due under in the Income tax Act for the preceding years, but not reduced from the block - Held, no

  ---

• 1969 (1) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Commencement of the 1961 Act - petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order imposing on the petitioner a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Are the provisions imposing penalty under the 1961 Act discriminatory - Held, no

  ---

1234