Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (9) 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 101 to 114 of 114 Records

• 1972 (9) TMI 14
  

  Whether there was material for the finding that the shares in question were purchased by the assessee with a view to acquire the managing agency and the control of the company or the shares constituted his stock-in-trade - Even if the shares in question did not constitute the stock-in-trade of the assessee, whether the profit made on the sale of shares did not constitute capital gain chargeable to income-tax under section 12B

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 13
  

  Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings under section 34(1)(a) have been validly initiated - Whether any capital gains within the meaning of section 12B could be said to arise by the transaction involving transfer of the investments held by the assessee to the company - Whether Tribunal was justified in law in computing the capital gains

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 12
  

  Sugar factory - on the facts and circumstances of this case, the expenditure incurred, i.e., 2% royalty on the sugar manufactured, is revenue expenditure. Our answer to the question, therefore, is that the two payments in respect of the monopoly rights for the years 1950-51 and 1952-53 are of capital nature while those paid for royalty for the three assessment years under consideration are of a revenue nature deductible under section 10(2) (xv)

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 11
  

  Department as well as the Tribunal had arbitrarily rejected the explanation given by the assessee. Under these circumstances we do not think that we will be justified in going into the niceties of the law, whether the High Court was justified in going into the merits of the findings reached by the Tribunal. All that we need say is that this is not a fit and proper case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 10
  

  Whether Tribunal's finding that the purchase of the shares by the Rana was not a benami transaction was legally valid - Whether Tribunal was justified in deleting the sum of Rs. 10,80,000 from the total income of the assessee by holding that the Rana was not the benamidar of the assessee - Questions are answreeed in favour of the revenue

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 9
  

  Fixed deposits - fact that the holder of the deposit could not gift satisfactory explanation regarding the sales would not be decisive. The material on record did not support the claim of the department that the amount belonged to the firm - No case, in our opinion, has been made for interfering with the judgment of the High Court. The appeals, consequently, fail and are dismissed

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 8
  

  Whether, the prospecting licence fee of Rs. 3,200 is allowable as revenue expenditure - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appropriate part of Rs. 1,53,800 was allowable as revenue expenditure- questions having been answered against the assessee

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 7
  

  Shares - valuation - yield method or on break-up method - power of SC to reframe the question - Whether to bring out the real issue the Supreme Court is certainly empowered to re-frame a question referred by the Tribunal, when the question does not correctly indicate the scope of the answer - Appeal of revenue is dismissed

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 6
  

  Whether the loss of ₹ 1,93,750 was an allowable deduction under section 10 - compensation received in lieu of loss of stock-in-trade as a result of enemy action it a trading receipt, conversely a loss of stock-in-trade occasioned by enemy action must be considered as a trading loss - we agree with the conclusions reached by the High Court and see no merit in this appeal

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 5
  

  Whether the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were properly commenced in the course of any proceedings under the Act as required by section 271 - Whether there was any material or evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had deliberately concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income as required by section 271(1) (c) - appeal of assessee is dismissed

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 4
  

  Whether the commission said to have been paid to the selling agents or any part thereof is properly deductible under section, 37 - Tribunal was justified in not stating a case for the opinion of the High Court under section 256(1) of the Act and the High Court was justified in not calling for a statement of case under sub-section (2) of section 256

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 3
  

  Whether Tribunal was right in holding that in the matter of calculation of undistributed balance of the total income of an assessee for the purpose of levy of super-tax in terms of section 23A(1), the ITO should have taken into consideration dividend declared by the company after the period of 12 months immediately following the expiry of the previous years but before the date on which the orders under sec. 23A(1) had been made – HC was right in answering the question in the affirmative

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 2
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of the terms of the relevant contracts the sales covered by the bills of lading in the names of the buyers in five cases took place outside India and, therefore, the profits derived from the said sales arose outside India - our answer to the question, is in the affirmative and against the department

  ---

• 1972 (9) TMI 1
  

  Rectification order made under section 35 - limitation - final order was, the one made by the Income-tax Officer consequent to the Commissioner's revisional order - time limit for passing rectification order in the case of the partners should be reckoned from the date of such consequential order - held that rectification under section 35(5) of the Act on March 16, 1965, is within time - assessee's appeal is dismissed

  ---

1 ....23456