Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (8) 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 81 to 90 of 90 Records

• 1972 (8) TMI 10
  

  Esatte duty Act - Unequal partition of HUF, karta takes lesser share than his entitlement - whether there is a gift and there is liability to Estate Duty Act - Whether the sum representing the difference between the value of a share in the family properties and the value of the properties actually allotted to R. Bheema Naidu at the partition of the family properties within 2 years prior to the death of the deceased has been rightly included in the estate as property deemed to pass on the death of the deceased within the meaning of section 9(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, read with section 27 and Explanation 2 to section 2(15) - view of the Tribunal is upholded and answer the reference in the affirmative and against the accountable persons

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 9
  

  Tribunal cannot deal with a subject-matter which has been considered by the assessing authority but not challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the assessee, in an appeal before the Tribunal in relation to other items of dispute. It will be a fortiori a case where an assessee did not seek to challenge a particular item before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Tribunal at the original stage but seeks to challenge the same at a later stage by way of additional grounds. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal is justified in refusing to excuse the delay in filing the additional grounds of appeal dealing with a new subject-matter

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 8
  

  Assessee takes over business of the predecessor - assessee was carrying on several other businesses which it had taken over - assessee-company was entitled to relief under section 25(3); as such, the judgment of the High Court has to be confirmed

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 7
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of notices issued under section 13(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.
  2. Interpretation of provisions under the Excess Profits Tax Act regarding assessment of tax on a person.
  3. Applicability of section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to Hindu undivided families.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: The validity of notices issued under section 13(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 was challenged in this case. The appellant, the Income-tax Officer, issued notices to the respondent under section 13(1) for chargeable accounting periods ending on specific dates. The respondent filed writ petitions challenging the validity of these notices. The High Court held that the appellant was not competent to proceed under the Act for a Hindu undivided family that had undergone partition. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld this decision, leading to the appeals in the Supreme Court.
  
  Issue 2: The interpretation of provisions under the Excess Profits Tax Act regarding the assessment of tax on a person was a crucial aspect of this judgment. The appellant contended that the tax is levied on the business and not on an individual, emphasizing the continuation of the business over the identity of the assessee. However, the Court referred to relevant sections of the Act, including section 14, which clearly indicated that the assessment of tax is on the person carrying on the business during the chargeable accounting period. The Court agreed with the observations of the High Court of Madras, emphasizing that the assessment of tax is on the person, even if the business continues but with a change in the person carrying on the business.
  
  Issue 3: The applicability of section 44 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to Hindu undivided families was discussed in this judgment. Section 44 deals with the assessment of firms or associations of persons after discontinuance or dissolution. The Court noted that Hindu undivided families are distinct entities and not classified under firms or associations of persons. The absence of a similar provision in the Excess Profits Tax Act, like section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, further supported the conclusion that the impugned notices were invalid. Previous decisions by the Madras and Allahabad High Courts were cited to reinforce this interpretation.
  
  In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the High Court regarding the invalidity of the notices issued under the Excess Profits Tax Act. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and their application to the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing the assessment of tax on the person carrying on the business and the distinct classification of Hindu undivided families under tax laws.

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 6
  

  Whether amounts standing in the special reserve account in the books of the assessee-company were deductible in determining the net wealth - Whether amounts standing in the shareholders' accounts as on the respective valuation dates were deductible - Whether amounts out of the debentures of the company were allowable as debts owed by the company

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 5
  

  Application of income to discharge a liability incurred not in the course of running the business but a liability undertaken for the purpose of acquiring the sole selling agency right which was indisputably an asset of capital nature - appeal by assessee is dismissed

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 4
  

  Whether the sum of Rs. 1,05,074 received by the applicant as compensation from the Government is taxable as income of the applicant or is a capital receipt in its hands - set aside the judgment of the High Court and answer the question referred by the Tribunal in favour of the department

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 3
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the receipt of Rs. 35,01,000 constituted income liable to tax under section 10 of the Income-tax Act.
  2. Whether it was competent for the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to invoke the provisions of section 12B for the assessment of Rs. 35,01,000 when the Income-tax Officer had assessed the amount under section 10 of the Income-tax Act.
  3. Whether the receipt of Rs. 35,01,000 was taxable under section 12B of the Income-tax Act.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether the receipt of Rs. 35,01,000 constituted income liable to tax under section 10 of the Income-tax Act:
  The Supreme Court examined whether the receipt of Rs. 35,01,000 was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The court emphasized that the nature of the receipt must be determined based on the facts of the case. The assessee-firm, a partnership involved in financing and money-lending, entered into an agreement with another group, forming a new partnership named Bagla-Jaipuria & Co., which acquired managing and selling agency rights. The agreement included a clause for one group to retire, with compensation paid by the continuing group. The court noted that the new partnership was not a partnership of two firms but of individual partners from each firm. The compensation paid to the retiring group included amounts for capital investment, interest, and compensation for surrendering rights. The court held that the compensation was a revenue receipt as it was paid for the termination of a contract entered into in the ordinary course of business. The court emphasized that the termination of such a contract did not affect the trading structure of the assessee-firm, which continued its business activities. Therefore, the entire sum of Rs. 35,01,000 was assessable under section 10.
  
  2. Whether it was competent for the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to invoke the provisions of section 12B for the assessment of Rs. 35,01,000 when the Income-tax Officer had assessed the amount under section 10 of the Income-tax Act:
  The court did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail, as it concluded that the receipt was assessable under section 10. The court's primary focus was on determining the nature of the receipt (capital or revenue) and its taxability under section 10. Since the court held that the receipt was a revenue receipt and assessable under section 10, the question of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's competence to invoke section 12B became moot.
  
  3. Whether the receipt of Rs. 35,01,000 was taxable under section 12B of the Income-tax Act:
  The High Court had held that the receipt was not taxable under section 12B, and the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to delve into this issue further. The court's determination that the receipt was assessable under section 10 rendered the question of its taxability under section 12B irrelevant. The court focused on the nature of the receipt and concluded that it was a revenue receipt, thus assessable under section 10.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court held that the entire sum of Rs. 35,01,000 received by the assessee was a revenue receipt assessable under section 10 of the Income-tax Act. The court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 2022 of 1968 with costs and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 1746 of 1968 with no order as to costs. The judgment emphasized that the receipt was a revenue receipt arising from the termination of a contract in the ordinary course of business and did not affect the trading structure of the assessee-firm.

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 2
  

  Payment of commission made to the directors was not because of any commercial expediency but for collateral reasons - commission paid to the directors cannot be considered as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and answer the question referred under section 66(2) in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 1972 (8) TMI 1
  

  Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of each of these cases the department was right in applying section 44F read with section 2(6A)(c) - Held that the deemed dividend contemplated by section 2(6A)(c) cannot be considered as "income" under section 44F - we agree with the High Court that section 44F is inapplicable to the facts of the assessee's case

  ---

12345