Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1971 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 61 to 80 of 1090 Records

• 1971 (12) TMI 21
  

  Assessee secured sole right to clear the goods of one through Mineral Products & Co. of Calcutta - Whether the commission paid by the assessee to the Mineral Products & Co. was allowable as a business expense laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business - benefit acquired was during the course of business in relation to one of the many transactions of the assessee and it had lasted only for a short duration with no permanent lasting benefit to the assessee. Therefore, the expenditure cannot be treated as capital in nature

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 20
  

  Acquisition of land - award was made subsequently - Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount received by the assessee by way of interest till the date of the award is capital receipt - we are unable to hold that the amount paid to the assessee and allowed by the Tribunal as a deduction represented anything other than compensation for deprivation of property. The property was not vested in the Government till the award was passed on August 31, 1962. The nature of the possession changed from that date and, we think, the Tribunal refused to allow deduction of interest payable from that date till September 6, 1962, rightly

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 19
  
  Issues:
  1. Claim of privilege by the Income-tax Officer regarding production of returns filed by the plaintiff.
  2. Interpretation of the Finance Act, 1964, and its impact on the confidentiality of assessment records.
  3. Conflict of decisions between different High Courts regarding the preservation of privilege under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, in the context of subsequent enactments.
  4. Application of section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in preserving rights, privileges, obligations, or liabilities accrued under repealed enactments.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment revolves around the claim of privilege made by the Income-tax Officer concerning the production of returns filed by the plaintiff. The Income-tax Officer argued that records from 1957 to March 31, 1964, are protected under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court examined the impact of the Finance Act, 1964, which omitted section 137 and introduced modifications, leading to a debate on the confidentiality of assessment records (paragraph 1).
  
  A Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court was cited, suggesting that the Finance Act, 1964, eliminated the privilege previously available to the Income-tax Officer. However, dissenting views from the Allahabad High Court and the Delhi High Court highlighted the preservation of privileges under section 54 even after subsequent enactments (paragraph 2).
  
  The judgment delves into the application of section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which safeguards rights, privileges, obligations, or liabilities acquired under repealed enactments. It emphasizes that the legislature did not intend to abolish the privileges under section 54, as evidenced by the enactment of section 137 in the new Act (paragraph 3).
  
  The court considered previous decisions, such as O. P. Aggarwal v. State, and Daulat Ram v. Som Nath, which upheld the privilege under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, even after subsequent legislative changes. Based on these authorities, the court concluded that the privilege remained intact for the Income-tax Officer, dismissing the revision petition (paragraph 4).

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 18
  

  Manufacture was outside the taxable territory but sale was within the taxable territory - All amounts except that received by cheques drawn by buyers in British India and collected through assessee's bankers in Indian State are received in British India and therefore such items of income are liable to tax – Whether Tribunal rightly held that the point regarding the jurisdiction raised by the assessee-firm was an objection regarding the place of assessment and that no appeal could lie to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal on the point – held that objection to the jurisdiction was actually an objection to the place of assessment which could not be raised in an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 17
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the super-tax levied under section 23A on the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61 is in accordance with law - For the purpose of s. 23A(1), it is the commercial profit of the assessee that has to be considered and not the total income computed under Income-tax Act – held that levy of super-tax was not justified

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 16
  

  Firm - death of a partner - partnership deed provides that death of a partner will not dissolve the partnership - A change in the constitution of the firm normally mean every alteration in the set up of the firm, namely, death, retirement, incapacity of partners, etc. Thus there was a change in the constitution of the assessee firm on the death of the partner - petitioner is not entitled to any order in this application. The application, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 15
  

  Rectification of Mistakes - Whether rectification proceedings can be initiated to examine whether the provisions of section 54 are applicable in this case - two opinions on the question are certainly possible. Section 154 could not therefore have been invoked

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 14
  

  Petitioner applied to the Central Board of Revenue under section 34(1B) for a settlement of the matter relating to the assessment -proposed settlement was accepted an order was passed under section 34(1B) as per which the proportion of appreciation in value of shares was to be paid in future - Whether the amount can be demanded without hearing the assessee and whether it could be questioned in a writ - Even if technically it may have been necessary for the Central Board of Revenue to have passed another order quantifying the amount and to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before such quantification was made - the petitioners having failed to prove that they suffered any injury or that any legal right of theirs has been affected by the demand made from them, they cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 13
  

  A return filed by an association of persons can not be treated as a return filed by a firm – contention of the revenue was that there was no return at all by the assessee in this case and that, in any case, the disposal by the Income-tax Officer by noting in his order sheet " N.A " i.e. not assessable, amounted to a termination of the proceedings and that since those returns did not disclose all materials for proper assessment as it came later to light, section 34 was properly invoked - reassessment u/s 34 was valid - reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 12
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipts from the sale of trees of spontaneous growth were assessable to tax and if so, whether assessable under 'Other sources' - Tribunal decided the question against the assessee by holding that the receipts from the sale of the trees is income assessable under the head “Other sources " – now question is answered in negative

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 11
  
  Issues:
  Entitlement to benefits of registration under section 184(7) for the assessment year 1966-67.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a firm in Bangalore City consisting of four partners engaged in the mill cloth business. The firm had been assessed as a registered firm until the assessment year 1965-66. However, for the assessment year 1966-67, the firm failed to submit the return of income in response to the notice under section 139(2) leading to an assessment being made on a best judgment basis on March 27, 1967.
  
  Despite not filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year, the firm submitted a declaration in Form No. 12 on September 30, 1966, stating no change in the firm's constitution or partners' shares. The Income-tax Officer assessed the firm as unregistered, arguing that the registration ceased to be operative due to the failure to file the return. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially directed assessment as a registered firm, but this decision was overturned by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal based on the clear language of the proviso to section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  The Tribunal's decision was supported by a previous judgment in Madivalappa and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that registration for one year does not extend automatically to subsequent years if the required documents are not furnished. The firm's argument, supported by its counsel, that filing a declaration without a return suffices for registration benefits was deemed untenable by the court. The court highlighted the specific language of the proviso and emphasized the necessity of filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year to maintain registration benefits.
  
  The court concluded that the firm had not met the proviso's requirements, leading to the cessation of the registration's effect for the assessment year 1966-67. Consequently, the court answered the referred question in the negative, favoring the department. The firm was directed to pay the costs of the department, including the advocate's fee.
  
  In summary, the judgment clarified that mere submission of a declaration without filing the return of income does not suffice to maintain the benefits of registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Compliance with all statutory requirements, including filing the return for the relevant assessment year, is crucial for the continuation of registration benefits for a firm.

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 10
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 – Trust – passing of property - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of clause 8(a) of the deed of H. E. H. the Nizam's Pocket Money Trust, the value of the corpus of 20 units allotted to the deceased and the accumulations of income therefrom passed on the death of the deceased – since deceased had not interest in corpus or the income of trust property, there was no passing of property on the death

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 9
  

  Penalty - concealment of income - fact that the assessee had been guilty of concealment in past years cannot lead to the inference that he is guilty of concealment in the year in dispute. The past record of the assessee was not relevant for the purpose of deciding as to whether there has been such concealment as to warrant imposition of penalty. As has been seen, penalty proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the facts necessary to attract the penal provision of section 271 of the Act must be clearly proved in respect of each year.

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 8
  

  Trust – object of the trust was establishment of Hindu dharamshala - the use of the trust money in the construction of the new dharamshala – immovable properties acquired out of the accumulated income - it was not an investment of trust fund but it was expenditure in furtherance of the trust objective - whole of the net surplus income of the trust properties was, therefore, clearly applied to the charitable purposes for which the trust properties were held by the trustees and was accordingly exempt from tax under section 11, sub-section (1), clause (a)

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 7
  

  This is not a case where there is such dearth of material. The document has used the word "kalakshepam" which definitely and undisputedly indicated the purpose of the gift. The donor at that time was advanced in age. His son was studying in an important college in the city of Madras. The word has been understood by the Tribunal as including not only the general needs of the son but also his educational needs. We are not prepared to say that the meaning attributed to the word in the context in which it was used in the document and in the circumstances in which the document was executed is wrong and we have not been shown any decisive meaning of the word "kalakshepam" which compel us to take a different view. - Answered in favor of assessee

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 6
  

  "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer, while passing the order under section 155 of the Act, was not justified in treating the share income of profit from the partnership firms as unearned ?" - Held that: It also held that, in any event, this was not a mistake which was apparent from the records but the Tribunal did not upset the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and in a way actually affirmed the same, by observing that it was conceded by the departmental representative that earned income relief was allowed to the assessee in the past in respect of his share income from various out-station firms.

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 5
  

  Appealable order - Income-tax Officer's order refusing registration or continuation of registration without giving an opportunity to rectify the defect in impugned order - Under section 246(j), an order refusing to register a firm under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section (1) of section 185 is an Appealable order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 4
  

  Estate duty Act - Estate of the deceased – Whether the Board were justified in holding that all the properties were correctly included in the estate duty assessment of the deceased as property which belonged to the deceased in his individual capacity - mere existence of a joint family property does not leads to a conclusion that the property held by a member of the family is joint

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 3
  

  Legal expenses in appeal and in connection with settlement of old assessment with the Directorate of Inspection - professional fees paid to chartered accountants in connection with representation to the Central Board of Revenue- allowable as business expenditure u/s 10(2)(xv) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 2
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Whether the unpaid income-tax liability was allowable as a debt within the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act.
  2. Whether the amount of tax which the assessee asserts to be due by him on the valuation date for the assessment year 1957-58 was not at all due on the valuation date.
  3. Whether the total amount of tax had not been paid by the assessee for a period of more than twelve months on the valuation date, no deduction could be made.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Allowability of Unpaid Income-tax Liability as a Debt:
  
  The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the unpaid income-tax liability was allowable as a debt within the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessment years in question were 1957-58, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, and 1962-63. The assessee, who had concealed income during the war, entered into a settlement under section 34(1B) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The settlement, signed on January 17, 1957, fixed the concealed income at Rs. 1,33,57,833, with an income-tax liability of Rs. 31,92,353 payable in five instalments. The Central Board of Revenue approved the settlement on May 1, 1957. The assessee sought to deduct one-third of Rs. 31,92,353 from his gross wealth as a debt owed, which was initially resisted by the department but allowed by the Tribunal.
  
  2. Existence of Liability on the Valuation Date for 1957-58:
  
  Dr. R. R. Misra, representing the department, argued that the tax liability did not exist on the valuation date for the assessment year 1957-58, as the Central Board of Revenue's order was passed on May 1, 1957. However, the Tribunal found that the terms of the settlement were accepted by the assessee on January 17, 1957, thus establishing the liability before the valuation date. The Tribunal concluded that the income-tax liability was ascertainable on January 17, 1957, and therefore existed on the valuation date of March 31, 1957.
  
  3. Deduction of Tax Not Paid for More Than Twelve Months:
  
  The second issue revolved around whether the unpaid tax for more than twelve months on the valuation date could be deducted. The Tribunal referred to clause (iii) of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, which excludes from "net wealth" the amount of tax outstanding for more than twelve months on the valuation date. The Tribunal interpreted the word "outstanding" to mean an amount due for payment but not paid. They concluded that the instalments payable under the settlement were not outstanding until they fell due, and thus, the unpaid instalments did not disqualify the assessee from deducting the debt from his net wealth.
  
  The Tribunal emphasized that the primary object of section 2(m) was to find the real net wealth of the assessee by deducting debts owed. They reasoned that disallowing the deduction of the debt because the entire amount was not paid within twelve months would give an unreal estimate of the assessee's net wealth. The Tribunal's interpretation was supported by the Calcutta High Court's decision in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Banarashi Prasad Kedia, which held that an amount not due for payment before the valuation date could not be considered outstanding.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal answered the question in the affirmative, allowing the unpaid income-tax liability as a debt within the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee was entitled to deduct the balance of the amount due under the settlement in calculating his net wealth. The Tribunal awarded costs to the assessee, assessed at Rs. 200.

  ---

12345678........ 55