Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1992 1992 (10) 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 221 to 226 of 226 Records

• 1992 (10) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Partner In Firm, Passing Of Property, Retirement Of Partner, Set Off

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ll. The late Shri J. M. Thakar was a leading advocate when he died. So were the other partners. All the above relevant factors have not been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has mainly gone on the principle that, even a firm of professionals can have goodwill. Its approach to factual effects has been rather negative. It was that both Shri J. M. Thakar and Shri C. J. Thakar were leading advocates and, therefore, it cannot be said that the firm did not have any goodwill. The principle that a firm of professionals can, in a given case, have goodwill cannot be disputed. But the case cannot be decided only on that principle. The basic facts and circumstances of each case will determine the point. They have not been considered. We do not notice any material on the basis of which the finding about the existence of goodwill of the firm could have been reached. Hence, both the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1992 (10) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  High Court, Income Tax Act, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... or the subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence unless the relief granted for the assessment year 1980-81 was withdrawn, the Income-tax Officer could not have withheld the relief for the subsequent years. See Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1980 123 ITR 669 . Hence, the approach of the Tribunal on all the counts has been perfectly legal. Question No. 2 thus will have to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Our attention was drawn to the recent decision in the case of CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. 1991 192 ITR 155 (SC) in support of a contention that even on the merits the point stood concluded in favour of the assessee. It is unnecessary to go into this aspect of the matter in view of our above answer to question No. 2. In the result, question No. 2 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 1 need not be answered. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1992 (10) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Computation Of Capital, Fixed Deposit, Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Tribunal. We see no infirmity in the legal proposition as set down by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order which has been affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. No law has been shown to us that unless money invested in the F. D. Rs. is actually used for the business purposes that cannot be included in the computation of the capital employed. The reasoning given by the Income-tax Officer was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. So far as the further working done by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is concerned, that has not been challenged as such and no reference has been made in regard to that and, therefore, we refrain from making any comments as to the correctness of the further working done by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order. For the reasons, we answer the abovementioned question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1992 (10) TMI 3 - SC ORDER
  

  Plant and machinery had been purchased subsequent to the date of devaluation of Indian currency - money was deposited in U.K. prior to devaluation - held that rupee value after depreciation is to be adopted for actual cost for purposes of depreciation & development rebate

  ---

• 1992 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the appeals once again to the file of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-I, Calcutta, for passing fresh orders under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after making further investigation

  ---

• 1992 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Scientific Research - controversy with regard to the retrospective amendment of section 80J - computation of business income for purposes of income-tax - allowance of depreciation - deduction u/s35(2)(iv)

  ---

1 ....89101112