Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1985 1985 (7) 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 261 to 273 of 273 Records

• 1985 (7) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Firm, Profits Chargeable To Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Supreme Court and it has been held that in the case of a transfer of an asset by an assessee to a partnership firm in which the assessee is himself a partner, there is no element of sale involved, as the partnership firm is a composite body consisting of the partner himself along with other partners and a person could not transfer or sell a property to himself. As such, neither is there a transfer nor a sale when a partner places an asset belonging to him at the disposal of the partnership firm of which he himself is partner and the value of the asset is credited to the account of the assessee to constitute the capital of the firm. In our view, the Appellate Tribunal was perfectly justified in refusing to make a reference, as there is no arguable question which needs to be referred to this court and the point sought to be raised stands concluded by the decisions of the Supreme Court, referred to above. The application for reference is dismissed without any order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Appeals, Reassessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... by the judgments stating that the power of enhancement given to the Commissioner (Appeals) by section 251 does not enable him to refer to a new source of income. Then again, there is no enhancement involved in this case, it is actually a reduction. So we think that these questions of law do not arise and they are really conclusions of fact based on the evidence before the Income-tax Officer and, as reconsidered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was, affirmed by the Tribunal. It may be useful to add that question No. 10 deals with alleged double taxation by treating the same entries as business transactions as well as for the purpose of interest income but we are not able to find any facts showing that this question arises either from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order or the Tribunal s order. The other questions sought to be raised do not also raise any referable question of law. So we dismiss this petition but leave the parties to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 11 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Inclusions In Total Income

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ner in the same firm or his minor children have been admitted to tile benefits of that partnership firm would not attract section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making the income of such spouse or the children liable to be clubbed with the income of the person who is partner in a representative capacity. For the selfsame reasons, in all these three references, we have to answer the questions as under I.T.R. No. 495 of 1980 We answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., infavour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We answer question No. 2 infavour of the assessee and against the Revenue, provisions of section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act could not be invoked. I.T.R. No. 125 of 1982 We answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No. 124 of 1982 We answer the questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, There would be no order as to costs in each of these references.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment, Notice Issued U/S 35

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s also that he filed the return with respect to the Hindu undivided family properties. The counsel for the assessee has sought to rely on the decisions in CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murthy 1967 65 ITR 607 (SC) and CIT v. Saraswati Bai (Smt.) 1982 137 ITR 656 (P and H). These are cases which could be distinguished on facts. On the other hand, we find authority for the proposition that merely for the reason that there was defect in the notice issued, the assessment was not liable to be quashed (Mahabir Prasad Poddar v. ITO 1976 102 ITR 478 (Cal)). We also find support for this view taken in Mohd. Haneef v. CIT 1955 27 ITR 447 (All) and Balchand v. ITO 1969 72 ITR 197 (SC). For the foregoing reasons, we answer question No. 1 also in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the court may be sent to the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 9 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment, Notice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t, as it is in conformity with the provisions of section 143(3) and section 159 of the Act. Mr. Rajesh Balia, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that in view of section 153 of the Act, which lays down the time-limit for completing the assessment and reassessment, the directions given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were justified, for, the time-limit provided in section 153 of the Act has expired. We regret, this contention cannot be accepted, for, we are to answer the question referred to us by the Tribunal, which is said to arise out of its order. No benefit can be taken on the basis of section 153 of the Act by learned counsel for the assessee in the reference before us. For the reasons mentioned above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal as required by section 260(1) of the Act.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... urt in Hukumchand jute Mills Ltd. v. Second Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1979 SC 876 54 FJR 391, and allow the assessee s deduction for the bonus paid. It has been found as a fact that the assessee had paid similar bonus in past years and have been allowed deduction of the same. In the year involved, the assessee had declared the bonus in dispute prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance and that such bonus was paid on commercial expediency and to maintain good relations, with the employees. We find that the rate at which the bonus had been paid falls within the range allowed by the Ordinance. For the above reasons, it does not appear to us that any particular question of law arises in the case which needs, to be considered by this court. We agree with the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The application, therefore, fails and we discharge the rule without any order as to costs. D. K. SEN J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 7 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e-tax Appellate Tribunal in appeal against the order that may be passed by the Commissioner, if the assessee may feel aggrieved against that order. At this stage, we do not think that there is any justification for this court to call for a reference. It may be noted that the question of sufficiency of service, which is sought to be raised does not survive in the context of the order passed by the Tribunal remanding the matter to the Commissioner in spite of its finding that the service was properly effected upon the assessee on the show cause notice issued under section 263 of the Act. When once the matter has been remanded to the Commissioner, the validity of the proceedings under section 263 of the Act can be questioned before him and as the entire matter has been thrown open, the question of sufficiency of service or otherwise is of no importance. In the circumstances, we find no reason to call for a reference. The application under section 256(2) of the Act is dismissed.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 6 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ) of the Wealth-tax Act is not retrospective and consequently excluded the value of the jewellery from the taxable wealth of the assessee. The Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal which upheld the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by relying on the Full Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Smt. Tarabai Kanakmal 1983 140 ITR 374. An application filed by the Department for making a reference to this court was rejected. Hence this application. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that against the Full Bench judgment an appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court which is pending and, therefore, the Tribunal in this case should be called upon to send the statement. However, in our opinion, this by itself is not a valid ground to entertain this application in view of the Full Bench decision referred to above. Consequently, we see no valid ground to entertain this petition and decline to call upon the Tribunal to make a reference as prayed for.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Assessable Person, Trusts, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... aluation date not only the beneficiaries are known but also their shares are equally known. They are also of the opinion that inasmuch as the Wealth-tax Officer has made an assessment on the beneficiaries even if an assessment was to be made on the trustees, such an assessment being one under section 21(1)cannot mean any difference in tax liability. The Department filed a reference application under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act which was rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, in relation to the questions of law as proposed above. Hence, this petition. After hearing learned counsel, in view of the Full Bench decision of this court reported in 140 ITR 374, we are of the opinion that no question of law as such arises as the Tribunal has given proper reasons. Consequently, we see no valid ground to entertain this petition and decline to call upon the Tribunal to make a reference as prayed for. The, petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 4 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Question Of Law, Reference

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ontained in the separate orders of the two Members of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1970-71 in respect of which the matter has not been referred to a third Member for resolving the controversy, does give rise to a question of law. The question is about the final decision of the Tribunal in respect of the penalty imposed for the assessment year 1970-71 and the final direction given by the Tribunal in its order, in the absence of any reference being made to a third Member for resolving the conflict arising from the two conflicting directions. The question of law, which arises for decision in the present case, in our opinion, is as under Whether the Tribunal has made any operative order in accordance with law relating to the imposition of penalty for the assessment year 1970-71 ? We accordingly direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the above question of law for the decision of this court. Since no one has appeared to oppose, there shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 3 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Exemptions, Jewellery, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... stance of the Revenue. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Shri R. C. Mukati, frankly submitted that the Tribunal has given proper reasons for deciding the question involved in favour of the assessee. He further submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal has been fortified by the Full Bench decision of this court in CWT v. Smt. Tarabai Kanakmal 1983 140 ITR 374, wherein it has been held that by amending section 5(1)(viii) by the addition of the Explanation, it is effective only from April 1, 1972. Jewellery will not include gold ornaments not studded with precious or semi-precious stones for any assessment years prior to April 1, 1972. Thus, in view of this decision and after hearing learned counsel, we are of the opinion that the reference has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Our answer to the question referred is, therefore, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Assessee succeeded to the business of the earlier firm - held that if a business along with its assets and liabilities were transferred by one owner to another, the debt so transferred is entitled to the same treatment in the hands of the successor. Therefore if the debt was taken into account for computation of the income of the predecessor assessee only and has been subsequently written off by the successor assessee, the assessee would still be entitled to the deduction of bad debt.

  ---

• 1985 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Question of construction of s. 80M - Intercorporate Dividends - it cannot be said that s. 80AA has the effect of imposing any fresh tax with retrospective effect. Section 80AA is clearly declaratory in nature and merely declares what the correct position has always been - held that for deduction of intercorporation dividends u/s 80Mm, the net dividend income forming part of the gross total income is to be considered, and not the full dividend received by the assessee

  ---

1 ....1011121314