Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1971 1971 (3) 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 103 of 103 Records

• 1971 (3) TMI 3
  
  Issues:
  Validity of trust in respect of claim to receive zamindari abolition compensation bonds for gift-tax assessment.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a reference under section 26 of the Gift-tax Act regarding the validity of a trust deed executed by Maharaja Pateshwari Prasad Singh. The deed purported to settle certain properties, including the right to receive zamindari compensation bonds worth Rs. 25,00,000, for the benefit of his wife. The Gift-tax Officer determined the taxable gift amount at Rs. 22,42,553, including the value of the compensation bonds. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, stating that a valid trust had been created, transferring the interest in the bonds to the trustees. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that the gift had not been acted upon as the bonds were not transferred to the trustees, leading to the conclusion that no valid trust existed. The Tribunal also suggested that the trust may have been affected by certain legislative acts. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of the value of the compensation bonds from the taxable gift.
  
  The main issue revolved around whether a valid trust had been created concerning the claim to receive zamindari abolition compensation bonds. The legal definition of a gift under the Gift-tax Act was crucial, focusing on the transfer of property voluntarily and without consideration. The Indian Trusts Act was referenced to determine the creation of a trust, emphasizing the necessity of transferring the trust property to the trustee for a valid trust to exist. In this case, the failure to transfer the bonds to the trustees led to the Tribunal's decision that no valid trust had been established. The absence of trustee signatures on the deed indicated incomplete execution, highlighting the importance of acceptance by the trustees for a valid transfer of property.
  
  The judgment delved into the specifics of trust creation, emphasizing the need for a clear intention to create a trust, identification of beneficiaries, and transfer of trust property to the trustees. The Tribunal's findings regarding the settlor's conduct post-execution of the trust deed were crucial in determining the validity of the trust. The settlor's failure to divest himself of the right to the bonds and subsequent treatment of the bonds as his own indicated that the trust had not been implemented, leading to the conclusion that no valid gift existed concerning the compensation bonds. The judgment ultimately favored the assessee, ruling against the imposition of gift-tax on the value of the zamindari abolition compensation bonds.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the intricacies of trust creation and the essential elements required for a valid trust under the Gift-tax Act. The analysis focused on the transfer of property, acceptance by trustees, and the settlor's conduct post-trust creation to determine the existence of a valid gift. The decision favored the assessee, emphasizing the importance of actual transfer of property to trustees for a trust to be deemed valid for gift-tax assessment purposes.

  ---

• 1971 (3) TMI 2
  
  Issues:
  1. Justification of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to an application under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. Lucknow, involving the imposition of a penalty on a Hindu undivided family for alleged concealment of income. The Income-tax Officer had treated a sum of Rs. 25,168 as undisclosed income of the assessee, originating from credit entries in the accounts of two family members' wives. Despite the assessee's explanation supported by Parchas and an affidavit, the Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty. The Tribunal, however, allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that the explanation provided by the assessee was prima facie believable and the burden of proof had not been discharged by the department to establish concealment of income. The Tribunal's finding was based on a thorough appraisal of the material on record, concluding that the penalty was not justified.
  
  The Commissioner of Income-tax contended that certain circumstances, including the unreliability of a witness, were not adequately considered by the Tribunal. However, the High Court held that the Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, had appropriately evaluated the evidence and found the department's evidence insufficient to prove concealment of income. The Court referenced legal precedents, such as Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali, emphasizing that the burden lies on the department to establish the disputed amount as taxable income and prove deliberate concealment. The Court further highlighted that unsatisfactory explanations alone do not lead to the inference of concealed income. Referring to other cases, the Court reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Anwar Ali's case regarding the burden of proof on the income-tax department in penalty cases.
  
  Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Commissioner's application, stating that the Tribunal's finding was based on a correct interpretation of the law and sufficient consideration of the evidence. The Court emphasized that the question raised did not warrant a reference as it was a factual determination within the Tribunal's purview. As the assessee was not present during the proceedings, no costs were awarded, and the counsel's fee was assessed at Rs. 100.

  ---

• 1971 (3) TMI 1
  

  Litigation expenses ncurred by the assessee in civil litigation against the banking concern are allowable for deduction - but expenses connected with the criminal case are not allowable because the criminal proceedings cannot be said to be wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee's business

  ---

1 ....23456