Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1979 1979 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 161 to 169 of 169 Records

• 1979 (10) TMI 9
  
  Issues: Interpretation of Section 18 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 regarding the entitlement to rebate on advance gift-tax payment due to a shortfall in tax payment on gifts made; Discrepancy in valuation leading to a tax shortfall; Aggregation of gifts for tax calculation purposes; Eligibility for minimum exemption on each gift occasion.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment pertains to a reference under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, regarding the entitlement to a rebate under Section 18 of the Act. The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to the rebate on the entire amount of advance gift-tax paid, given a shortfall in tax payment on gifts made. The gifts in question were made during the accounting year 1969-70, totaling Rs. 2,04,557, with the assessment year being 1970-71. The assessing officer added amounts to the gifts, resulting in a taxable gift sum of Rs. 1,97,330, on which gift-tax was levied after allowing a statutory exemption. The assessee had made an advance tax payment of Rs. 24,900, leading to a calculated rebate of Rs. 1,525. However, a shortfall of Rs. 11 in tax payment on the second gift was noted, leading to a dispute over the eligibility for the rebate.
  
  The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) held that credit should be given for 10% of the sum paid in advance, not exceeding the tax determined in the assessment, thereby directing the rebate to be granted as claimed by the assessee. The Gift-tax Officer (GTO) appealed this decision to the Tribunal, which upheld the AAC's order, stating that the assessee had paid more than the required tax amount. The Commissioner then brought the matter under reference to the High Court.
  
  The Court analyzed Section 18 of the Act, emphasizing the provision for an assessee to pay tax due on gifts within 15 days of making the gift, with a credit of 10% of the amount paid. The Explanation in the section addressed cases of multiple taxable gifts in a year, requiring aggregation of gifts for tax calculation. The Court highlighted that the rebate was an inducement for early tax payment, not a reward for valuation accuracy.
  
  Regarding the discrepancy in valuation leading to a tax shortfall, the Court noted that the assessee's valuation, if bona fide, should be accepted for tax payment purposes. The Court cautioned against a construction that would allow manipulation of valuations to defeat the rebate provision. It emphasized that the benefit of the Act should not be nullified by unreasonable interpretations.
  
  The Court also corrected an error in the Tribunal's order regarding the aggregation of gifts and the availability of minimum exemption on each occasion. It clarified that the exemption would apply only once when the minimum amount was crossed, not on each individual gift occasion below the threshold.
  
  Ultimately, the Court reframed the question to address the entitlement to the rebate due to a shortfall in tax payment arising from valuation differences, ruling in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting tax laws to uphold the intended benefits for taxpayers and prevent potential abuses.

  ---

• 1979 (10) TMI 8
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1965-66 was justified. The court ruled that the default was not attributable to the return filed in the original assessment proceedings, making the amended provisions of section 271(1)(c) applicable. The court's decision was against the assessee, who did not appear in the proceedings.

  ---

• 1979 (10) TMI 7
  
  Issues:
  1. Applicability of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in determining capital gains.
  2. Taxability of a sum under capital gains in view of section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when gift-tax has been levied on the same transfer.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to a case where the Commissioner of Income-tax raised two questions before the court regarding the assessment of capital gains. The assessee, an individual, admitted capital gains on the sale of property, but a discrepancy arose in determining the fair market value of the property. The Income-tax Officer assessed the capital gains using section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the property's market value. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disagreed, directing the Income-tax Officer to compute capital gains based on the sale price. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that section 52(2) requires proof of understatement of consideration, which was not present in this case. Consequently, the application of section 52(2) was deemed incorrect.
  
  Regarding the taxability under section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Gift-tax Officer had already levied gift-tax on the difference between the market value and the sale price. The Tribunal upheld this assessment, citing section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act. The court referred to a previous judgment where a similar issue was addressed, leading to a decision against the Department. Therefore, the court answered the first question affirmatively in favor of the assessee. The second question, concerning the availability of exemption under section 47(iii), was considered unnecessary due to the first question's resolution. If a response were required, it would be against the assessee based on a prior judgment. Consequently, the reference was answered accordingly, with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1979 (10) TMI 6
  
  Issues involved: Application u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding penalty imposed u/s 140A(3) of the Act.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court of Rajasthan heard an application filed by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning a penalty imposed on an assessee under section 140A(3) of the Act. The assessee, a small scale cottage industry manufacturing diesel generating sets, failed to pay self-assessment tax by the due date but deposited the amount before a later date. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,000, which was reduced to Rs. 13,000 on appeal. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the penalty, stating reasonable grounds for the late payment. The Revenue's application for reference was dismissed by the Tribunal, leading to the current petition before the High Court.
  
  The Tribunal's decision was based on a finding of fact, concluding that no penalty was leviable due to the circumstances presented by the assessee. The High Court, in its advisory jurisdiction u/s 256(2) of the Act, found no grounds to question the Tribunal's conclusion. It was determined that the Tribunal did not act on irrelevant material or overlook evidence on record. The Court emphasized that it cannot assess the sufficiency of evidence underlying the Tribunal's decision. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the application for reference, with each party bearing their own costs.

  ---

• 1979 (10) TMI 5
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Interpretation of "accumulated profits" under section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
  2. Competence of the Appellate Tribunal to refer a question to the High Court at the instance of the assessee when no reference application was made by the assessee.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Interpretation of "Accumulated Profits" under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
  The primary issue in this case was whether the term "accumulated profits" as mentioned in section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, includes current profits. The assessee had withdrawn money from the company, and the Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated these withdrawals as dividends under section 2(6A)(e). The assessee contended that only Rs. 1,050 could be considered as "dividend" since the accumulated profits of the company were Rs. 18,950, after adjusting provisions for tax and dividend. The ITO, however, included current profits for the year ending March 31, 1959, in determining the accumulated profits.
  
  The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim that "accumulated profits" do not include current profits but rejected the contention regarding the provisions for tax and dividend. The High Court of Kerala affirmed this view, answering in favor of the assessee.
  
  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the term "accumulated profits" does not include current profits. The Court referenced multiple judicial decisions, including Girdhardas & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. M. V. Murugappan, and CIT v. P. K. Badiani, which consistently held that "accumulated profits" are distinct from current profits. The Court emphasized that this distinction has been recognized in judicial decisions and the mercantile world for over a century. The Court dismissed the revenue's argument that the Law Commission's Twelfth Report intended to include current profits in "accumulated profits."
  
  2. Competence of the Appellate Tribunal to Refer a Question to the High Court at the Instance of the Assessee:
  The second issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal was competent to refer a question to the High Court at the instance of the assessee, who had not made a reference application. The revenue contended that the Tribunal should not have referred the question regarding the provision for tax and dividend, as no reference application was made by the assessee.
  
  The Supreme Court agreed with the revenue, stating that Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, allows only the party applying for a reference to specify the questions of law. The Court distinguished between two categories of cases: one where the Tribunal's order partly favors both parties, requiring each aggrieved party to file a reference application, and the other where the order entirely favors one party, allowing the non-applicant to raise questions of law only to support the Tribunal's order.
  
  The Court found that the question regarding provisions for tax and dividend was separate and distinct from the question of including current profits in accumulated profits. Therefore, the Tribunal was not competent to refer the second question, and the High Court's judgment on this question was set aside.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the inclusion of current profits in "accumulated profits," affirming the High Court's decision in favor of the assessee. However, it allowed the appeal concerning the competence of the Tribunal to refer the second question, setting aside the High Court's judgment on that matter. There was no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1979 (10) TMI 4
  
  Issues:
  - Whether the transactions in which the assessee was engaged were "speculative transactions" as defined by Expln. 2 to s. 24(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved the question of whether certain transactions carried out by the assessee in gunnies constituted "speculative transactions" under the Indian Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 2,25,450 due to transactions with a specific party involving the purchase and sale of gunny bags. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) considered these transactions as speculative, as there was no physical delivery of goods, only transfer of delivery orders. The assessee appealed, and the Appellate Tribunal found that the loss occurred in a transaction where there was no physical delivery of goods, but the payment was made through cheques, following trade usage. The Tribunal considered it a transaction of delivery for cash, not a speculative one.
  
  The High Court was asked to determine whether the loss of Rs. 2,25,450 was a speculative transaction under the Act. The High Court ruled in favor of the revenue, holding that actual delivery or transfer of the commodity is necessary to exclude a transaction from being speculative. The assessee argued that the transfer of pucca delivery orders constituted actual delivery of goods, but the court disagreed. The court emphasized that Expln. 2 to s. 24(1) requires a real or factual delivery, not a notional one.
  
  The Supreme Court referred to previous decisions by the Calcutta High Court and its own rulings regarding speculative transactions. It noted that unless there is actual delivery or transfer of the commodity, a transaction would be considered speculative. The Court highlighted a previous judgment where it was held that if actual delivery of goods sold was made to the ultimate purchaser of the delivery orders, the transaction would not be speculative. However, a later decision overruled this view and preferred the strict interpretation adopted by the Calcutta High Court.
  
  In the present case, as there was no actual delivery or transfer of the gunny bags, and the contracts were settled by the transfer of delivery orders only, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in favor of the revenue. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the transactions in question were speculative, resulting in a loss that could not be treated as an ordinary business loss.

  ---

• 1979 (10) TMI 3
  

  Whether the loss of Rs. 1,03,688 was the result of speculative transactions within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 24(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and, therefore, was not allowable to be set off under section 24(1) - Transactions of sale and purchase were settled by handing over delivery orders and payment by cheque - question is answered in favour of revenue

  ---

• 1979 (10) TMI 2
  

  Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled in law to set-off unabsorbed loss of Rs. 15,50,189 of the assessment year 1950-51 against the business income of the assessment year 1960-61 - held, no - law applicable is the law that is in force in 1960-61.

  ---

• 1979 (10) TMI 1
  

  Four brothers, members of a coparcenary, partitioned their family properties, leaving in common a large house in the occupation of their mother - Coparceners in joint house property released deed in favour of the assessee, for extra share to be given - it amounts to ' purchase ' of house property by assessee - entitled for relief from capital gains u/s 54(1)

  ---

1 ....56789