Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1986 1986 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 261 to 265 of 265 Records

• 1986 (9) TMI 6 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Business Loss

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... etermined in proceedings under section 154. Question No. 3 It is answered in the affirmative. It is held that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record in the matter of withdrawal of rebate of income-tax in clause (i)(c)(iii)(B) of the second proviso to Para. F of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1965. Question No. 4 It is answered in the affirmative and it is held that the Tribunal is justified in holding that the company is one in which the public are substantially interested. Question No. .5 It is also answered in the affirmative and it is further held that the Tribunal is justified in relying on the regular assessment order for 1964-65 and tax calculations thereof to come to the conclusion that for 1965-66 assessment, the company is one in which the public are substantially interested. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1986 (9) TMI 5 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Delay In Filing Return, Estate Duty, Interest, Writ

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ubject to payment of interest. We, consequently, find that in a case where no order for extension of time is made subject to the payment of interest, the Controller has no power to charge the same on the basis of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 53. The Act does not provide for charging of interest in such case. Consequently, the interest could not be charged and the levy of Rs. 15,093 was unauthorised and illegal. It may be noted here that in the first application for correction made under section 61, the petitioner had taken it as a ground stating that no interest was chargeable under section 53(3) as no order on the assessee s application dated June 3, 1976, was passed. It appears that this application remained undisposed of. In the circumstances, we allow the writ petition in part and hereby issue a mandamus directing respondent No. 1 not to charge Rs. 15,093 as interest for late filing of the return. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.

  ---

• 1986 (9) TMI 4 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal To AAC, Assessment, Revision

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... has rightly cancelled the consolidated order passed by the Commissoner of Income-tax under section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1973-74 ? The facts of these references are exactly identical to those in the case of CIT v. Pushpa Devi (Taxation Cases Nos. 93 to 98 of 1978 disposed of on June 13, 1986- 1987 164 ITR 639 (Pat) ) except that the assessee is different in these references. The questions falling for consideration are exactly the same. For the reasons given by us in the case of CIT v. Pushpa Devi 1987 164 ITR 639 (Pat) in which the questions referred to us were exactly the same as in these references, all the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, in the special circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, in terms of section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1986 (9) TMI 3 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty, Notice, Property Escaping Assessment, Reassessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the notice had already been filed by the petitioners before the respondent and that no orders thereafter had been passed by the respondent pursuant to the notice. The apprehension expressed by counsel for the petitioners is that the notice having been issued in spite of the provisions contained in section 36 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the respondent might pass an assessment order which might be prejudicial to the petitioners, and it would be even without jurisdiction. We have absolutely no reason to believe that the respondent would pass any order without perusing the objections filed by the petitioners or without noticing the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly section 36(3) (sic) of the Estate Duty Act. The respondent would dispose of the matter after carefully considering the objections filed and taking due notice of the relevant provisions of law, particularly of section 36(3) (sic) of the Estate Duty Act. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 1986 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Appellant, Brooke Bond & Co. Ltd., now known as Brooke Bond Leibig Ltd., is a sterling company carrying on business in tea with its head office in the United Kingdom, The appellant has invested in shares of other tea companies in different parts of the world, and has a hundred percent shareholding in an Indian subsidiary, Brooke Bond (India) Ltd. - held that dividends received is not business income as share holdings are not incidental to assessee's business

  ---

1 ....1011121314