Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise Tri Income Tax - Tri
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Income Tax - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 52341 to 52360 of 52547 Records

  • 1976 (3) TMI 99 - ITAT PATNA

    HARICHARAN KEJRIWAL. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR.

    ... ...
    ... ... essed on the basis of the gross turnover disclosed by his books of account and the taxable turnover should be determined by deducting also the amount Rs. 11,249.00 from the gross turnover on account of sales to the registered dealer, Badriram Hirala.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 97 - ITAT MADRAS-C

    COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. Versus VEPPALODAI SALT.

    ... ...
    ... ... ty, we are clear in our mind that no referable question of law at the instance of the Revenue, arises on the findings of the Tribunal. We, therefore, decline to make the reference sought for by the Revenue and reject all there reference applications.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 93 - ITAT MADRAS

    TVL ENNORE FOUNDRISES LTD. Versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU.

    ... ...
    ... ... 5 . . . . 52,559.95 2 5. 1969-70 92/73 104/72 1,33,135.43 2 . . . . 16m269.00 3 3. In the result the claims for the years mentioned in the preceding paragraph are remanded to the CTO III/C.A.C. Madras for dealing with the same in accordance with law.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 92 - ITAT MADRAS

    THE VENKATACHALA REDDIAR DHARMAM. Versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU.

    ... ...
    ... ... e extent of holding etc. Under the circumstances we cannot possibly tinker in the estimates at this stage. 5. In the result, the orders of the Asstt. CIT are confirmed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no refund of the institution fee.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 91 - ITAT MADRAS

    P. GOVINDASAMI. Versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU.

    ... ...
    ... ... ll cattle feeds and exempt even after 22nd March, 1974 even under second Notification. Turnover of Rs. 21,994 will therefore be exempt. 9. Under the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed Relied due at 3 1/2 per cent on a turnover of Rs. 91,816.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 90 - ITAT MADRAS

    KO CASSIM. Versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU.

    ... ...
    ... ... le. Since it is not liable to tax under resale, it is not necessary the consider the extent of stock in such goods. 7. In the result, an addition of Rs. 38,759.74 alone would be eligible for confirmation. Relief due Rs. 1,27,081.89 at 3 1/2 per cent.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 83 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A

    THE TENALI SRI RAMALINGESWARA RICE FACTORY LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

    ... ...
    ... ... oited by them. We will, therefore, hold on the authority of the Supreme Court decision quoted last (33 ITR 700) that the assessee in letting out the godowns is doing business and the income is assessable as business income. 13. The appeal is allowed.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 82 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A

    JALLURI SARVESAM. Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER.

    ... ...
    ... ... t Palacol during business seasons. The mere fact that in the night he was sleeping in the business premises does not covert the business premises to his residence. On these facts, we think the loss claimed has to be allowed. 6. The appeal is allowed.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 81 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A

    SRI VENKATESWARA DHALL FLOUR & OIL MILL CONTRACTORS CO. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

    ... ...
    ... ... d to the fact regard to the fact that the book results have been consistently accepted by the Department, we find no warrant for the sustenance of the addition of Rs. 7,575, We order deletion of this addition. 3. In the result, the appeal is allowed.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 79 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A

    MAJETI VENKATA SUBBARAO. Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER.

    ... ...
    ... ... rghese vs. CIT 80 ITR 180 (Ker). The case relied on by the assessee in not applicable here because there the Tribunal found as a fact that there were separate services rendered. We are unable to give such a finding here. 8. The appeals are dismissed.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 77 - ITAT DELHI-D

    INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus DR. KK. GOEL.

    ... ...
    ... ... ase is made out against the assessee for levy of penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the Act read with the Explanation thereto. 8. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Penalty amount if already paid by the assessee shall be refunded to him.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 76 - ITAT DELHI-C

    RAJ NARAIN AGGARWAL. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

    ... ...
    ... ... ecided of the two cases cited by the learned counsel of the assessee directly applies to the facts of this case. The penalty is, therefore, also against the provisions of lrw. It is cancelled. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 75 - ITAT DELHI-B

    SMT. KRISHNA DUA. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

    ... ...
    ... ... the facts and the circumstances of the present case the assessee rsquo s claim that the omission was due to over sight rather than due to any fraud or wilful neglect on her part is acceptable. 4. I, therefore, cancel the penalty and allow the appeal.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 73 - ITAT COCHIN

    GP. GOPALA PILLAI. Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER.

    ... ...
    ... ... e liability to be assessed for share income are not conclusive materials about the absence of reasonable cause. 12. So we find that there was reasonable cause for the failure. For these reasons, we allow the appeal. The penalty imposed is cancelled.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 72 - ITAT COCHIN

    SRI KP. SUBBARAMA SASTRIGAL. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

    ... ...
    ... ... t of income on the part of the assessee. The Explanation is also of no assistance to the Department when the merits of the case is taken into consideration. so the appeal has to be allowed. 8. The appeal is allowed. The penalty imposed is cancelled.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 70 - ITAT CHANDIGARH

    UJJAL SINGH MANN. Versus GIFT TAX OFFICER.

    ... ...
    ... ... taxation of the immovable gift, either before the Appellate CIT or before us, the scope of the order in the present appeal may be confined to the question of taxability of the movable gifts. We order accordingly. 10. The appeal is allowed pro tanto.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 69 - ITAT BOMBAY-C

    BHAWANIDAS & CO. Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER.

    ... ...
    ... ... no obligation to file the return and in any event, it was prevented by reasonable cause for doing to within time. In the circumstances I further hold that penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(a) is not justified. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 68 - ITAT BOMBAY-B

    THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus SMT. JENABAI MOHD.

    ... ...
    ... ... t of the assessee to conceal income and the order of penalty was, therefore rightly cancelled. In view that we had taken it is not necessary to consider the legal contentions urged by the learned counsel for the assessee. 7. The appeal is dismissed.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 66 - ITAT BOMBAY

    THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus VIJAY BOARD AGENCIES.

    ... ...
    ... ... itions would be warranted. We do not find that there is justification in these cases for making any additions to the trading results disclosed by the assessee. We accordingly confirm the order of the AAC and dismiss these appeals as devoid of merit.


  • 1976 (3) TMI 65 - ITAT BANGALORE

    THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus KAPILA TEXTILES (P) LTD.

    ... ...
    ... ... ear. 8. In our opinion, the Allahabad High Court judgment squarely governs the facts of the present case. No contrary authority directly in point has been shown to us. In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the AAC. 9. The appeal is dismissed.


 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version