Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (6) 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 48 Records

• 1972 (6) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Penalty for wrongful with holding of property

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e, I am unable to hold that Mr. Balchand wrongfully obtained possession of any property of the company at all. There is absolutely no basis to hold that Mr. Balchand wrongfully withheld any property of the company) on the basis of the allegations found in the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the court about the high praise lavished by the company on the services rendered by Mr. Balchand, the petitioner, in the audit report of the year, 1969. The learned counsel for the respondent-company actually endorsed it as found in the printed annual report of the directors. I cannot but hold that this complaint is both misconceived and ill conceived. The averments and the allegations found in the complaint of the company do not satisfy the ingredients of section 630(1) (a) or (b). In my view, this complaint is wholly groundless. The proceedings in C.C. No. 1178 of 1971, on the file of the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gudalur, are quashed.

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Confiscation, liability to goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of the Constitution. The power of seizure in itself is justified by the fact that is applied to the offending goods. If excisable goods are removed without payment of duty in violation of Rule 9(1), a such non-duty paid goods are liable to confiscation under sub-rule (2) of that Rule. As we have already held the liability is not dependent because the offending goods have passed hands either in possession, or ownership, or both from the producer or manufacturer to a third party for value and bona fide. The power conferred upon the Excise Officers by Section 12 of the Excises and Salt Act, read with Section 110 of the Customs Act and the relative notifications of the Central Government to seize such goods liable to confiscation, is necessarily reasonable and in public interest, inasmuch as it is intended to effectuate the purposes of the Excises and Salt Act, and safeguard the revenue legitimately due to the Union. 7.The petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Substantially Interested

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... speech of the Honourable Minister who piloted the Bill in Parliament and argued that the provision in section 2(18) before its amendment did not take in a company like the assessee-company. We do not think that this is the proper way to understand and interpret section 2(18) before its 1965 amendment. Statements by Ministers and Explanatory notes on the clauses of the Bill cannot be used as aids to the construction of the enactment. The law is well-settled on this point. The 1965 amendment by expanding the expression the public in section 2(18)(b)(B)(i)(c) has, according to us, only clarified the pre-existing position and it does not make any change in the law. In this view of the matter, the decisions in the two cases rendered by the Appellate Tribunal are right. We answer the questions in the affirmative, i.e., against the department. No costs. In each case a copy of this order shall be sent to the Income-tax Tribunal as required by section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Petitioners have filed this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus against respondent No. 1 directing him to register under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act the Indenture of Contributory First Legal Mortgage dated, and to endorse thereon the certificate of registration as required by the said Act - It is alternatively prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing respondent No. 1 to register the said mortgage deed qua the mortgagor and to keep the registration of the said deed pending, until the tax clearance certificate is obtained by the confirming parties to the said mortgage deed - When tax clearance certificate is produced by only one of the executants and not by others, whether registration can be made in respect of the person producing the certificate

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 24 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of assessment of HUF made without enquiry under section 25A and after intimation of complete partition - " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer on the Hindu undivided family of Sri Kapoorchand Shrimal, for the years under reference, without passing an order under section 25A, were valid in law ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 42,009 was a trading loss deductible in the assessment for the year 1958-59 ?"

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the revenue has a statutory obligation to communicate to the first and second respondents the approval granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax for detention of books of account and documents seized under a warrant issued under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and, secondly, whether an opportunity of being heard should have been given to the persons interested in the return of the books and documents before an order of approval is made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 132(8)

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 22 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  

  Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 - It is specifically averred by the petitioner in petition that "no notice under section 19(2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner and the order of assessment was passed without service of such notice upon the petitioner." - When the assessee does not file return of income and no notice under s. 19(2) was served whether assessment could be completed also whether question of service of notice can be looked into a writ petition against assessment order without issue of notice

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 21 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  

  This application under article 226 of the Constitution is directed against a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the Income-tax Officer

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 20 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee, as a member of the Hindu undivided family, was entitled to throw her separate property into the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 19 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the donation of cloth of the value of Rs. 6,834 given by the assessee-company was eligible for exemption under section 88 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - one has to look to the substance of the transaction and the purpose underlying section 88(1) of the Act and if that is done, we have no doubt that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 6,834 which represents the value of the cloth donated to various charitable institutions

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Expenditures - commission and bonus paid to the managing director – reasonableness of the expenditure claimed under various sub-clauses (i) to (xv) of section 10 should be decided with reference to section 10(4A) - totality of the allowance claimed towards remuneration etc. to a director has to be considered under section 10(4A) - since there is a specific provision in section 10(2)(x) dealing with commission, it cannot be treated as part of the salary and section 10(2)(xv) can be applied - Bonus paid to a managing director will attract section 10(4A) besides section 10(2)(x) and it must satisfy the conditions laid therein

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty proceedings under s. 273(b) - Whether the reassessment made under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not a regular assessment and, therefore, the provisions of section 273(b) could not be validly applied to such a case

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Amount of ₹ 2,77,500 which the Income-tax Officer added back as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources - assessee's case was that these are genuine transactions of borrowings on hundies from various parties. The Income-tax Officer has himself said that "complete details have been furnished by the assessee in respect of loans from these bankers" - assessee explained the sources for the hundi loans which was taken from people who were assessed to income-tax by crossed cheques. These lenders also confirmed the loans - Tribunal's decisions to reverse the Income-tax Officer's finding that the loans were assessees income from undisclosed sources does not gives rise to a question of law - Tribunal's finding was arrived at on the basis of association of the evidence. This is a question of fact

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 15 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the payment of a larger dividend would be unreasonable and in cancelling the Income-tax Officer's orders under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961,?" - It is unreasonable to reckon available surplus for distribution as dividend ignoring bad and doubtful debts and advances made. If these are also taken into account, the dividend distributed satisfies even the percentage provided in section 109(4). In any view of the matter, it is impossible to hold that the Income-tax Officer was not in error in thinking that it was not unreasonable to insist that there should have been a higher percentage of dividend declared

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, the deduction admissible is in respect of tax payable pursuant to the relevant return filed by the assessee or whether such deduction is admissible in respect of tax as finally determined on assessment - When one coparcener of Hindu joint family died, his share devolved on mother and wife under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, what is the extent of the interest of the surviving joint family in the family jewellery - Tribunal was right in taking the view that only two-thirds share in the jewellery was liable to be taken into account in computing the net wealth of the assessee Hindu undivided family and since it was of the value of less than Rs. 25,000, it was exempt u/s 5(1)(xiv).

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner-company has challenged the legality and correctness of the order, dated March 30, 1967, whereby the first respondent, Income-tax Officer, in computing the income-tax liability computed the capital gains made by the petitioner-company for the assessment year 1962-63 at Rs. 47,97,735 - The year in which the ownership of the capital is transferred will be the previous year for the assessment of capital gains by the shareholder - It is also not possible for me to make a finding that this petition is not well-founded, in view of the fact that the vires of section 46 are challenged in this petition. I have not found it necessary to decide this question because I was in favour of the assessee-company on the main question

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 12 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Valuation for the purpose of wealth-tax of a mica mine, - assessee gave on lease mica mines for 20 years - Wealth-tax Officer should consider the figures in balance-sheet and also adjustments should be made in arriving at the true value - Tribunal's valuation by deducting 1/20th of the value given for every year after 1954 was proper

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 11 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Charitable Purpose - objects and functions of the institution - general public utility - trust for promotion of unity among members of community and for complete development of all aspects of life of members of a community - purpose beneficial to the public - therefore, this was a charitable trust

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  While enquiring into the purchase and sale of flats the Income-tax Officer found entries pertaining to a sum of Rs.95,000 in the books of the assessee. A sum of Rs. 95,000 was alleged to have been borrowed by her(assessee) on hundi loans – held that once the assessee indicated reasonably a source to which the amount of Rs. 95,000 could well be attributed the assessee has discharged the burden of proof on her - finding of the Tribunal that the transactions of loans were fictitious was based on evidence - issue being one of fact, it cannot be taken up in reference

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Computing the net wealth of the assessee - claim of the assessee for deduction of the wealth-tax liability – What is the liability towards income-tax, gift-tax and wealth-tax that can be deducted - applicability of provisions of section 2(m)(iii)(a) – demand notice u/s 30 – valuation date

  ---

123