Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1975 1975 (11) 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 121 to 126 of 126 Records

• 1975 (11) TMI 6
  
  Issues Involved:
  The issues involved in the judgment are whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that selling paddy at prices higher than those fixed under the Kerala Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order can only be cognizant by a specific authority, and whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the maximum prices as the price at which the excess paddy was sold in the open market.
  
  First Issue:
  The assessee filed returns under the Kerala Agrl. I.T. Act, and the assessments were finalized by the Agrl. ITO on a best judgment basis. The net assessable income was determined for various assessment years. The AAC made modifications in regard to yield and expenses under paddy, but did not interfere with the valuation of paddy. The matter was taken up in second appeal before the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, where the main point raised was the calculation of paddy price exceeding the nirak rate or the rate prescribed under the Kerala Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order. The Tribunal directed the assessing authorities to calculate the value of paddy at the nirak rates and the prices fixed by the rules for the relevant periods, emphasizing the mandatory nature of these rules and the consequences of violating them.
  
  Second Issue:
  The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax made Reference Applications requiring the Tribunal to refer certain questions of law to the court. The revenue contended that the decision of the Tribunal regarding the Maximum Prices Control Orders was erroneous, citing a Supreme Court case. However, the Tribunal's mistake in stating that illegal transactions cannot be cognizant by an authority constituted by the statute does not help the revenue in this case. The Agrl. ITO did not find that the assessee sold paddy at rates exceeding the legally fixed rates, and fixing prices higher than the Maximum Prices Order in a best judgment assessment would be based on conjectures. The judgment highlighted the unlawfulness of selling paddy at rates higher than those fixed by the Maximum Prices Order, emphasizing the legal consequences and the need for evidence to prove any illegality in transactions.
  
  Conclusion:
  The judgment addressed the issues related to the valuation of paddy and the legality of selling paddy at prices exceeding the Maximum Prices Order. It emphasized the mandatory nature of the rules and the need for evidence to prove any violation. The Tribunal's direction to calculate paddy value based on the legally fixed rates was upheld, and the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal framework governing the pricing of essential commodities like paddy.

  ---

• 1975 (11) TMI 5
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the decision of the Tribunal that a sum of Rs. 94,658 or any part thereof is not taxable under the provisions of the Gift-Tax Act is legally sustainable in law?
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under the Gift-Tax Act, 1958. The dispute arose from a partnership formed between a father and son in a cloth-selling business. The father, a sole proprietor, admitted his son as a partner by bringing in capital and retaining the son's earlier advances in the business. The father declared a gift of Rs. 30,000 to his son, which was disputed by the tax authorities. The Gift Tax Officer (GTO) assessed a gift value of Rs. 1,35,960, with an exemption of Rs. 10,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) reduced the gift value to Rs. 94,658, subject to statutory exemptions. The Tribunal held that the partnership did not result in a taxable gift, as the son's admission as a partner was based on consideration, including capital contribution and active involvement in the business. The Tribunal also noted that the partnership did not involve a transfer of specific interest in the goodwill of the firm, hence the provisions of the Gift-Tax Act were not applicable.
  
  The Tribunal's decision was challenged, arguing that the partnership constituted a gift liable to tax. However, the Court found that the partnership formation was not a gift under the Gift-Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the son's capital contribution and retention of earlier advances constituted consideration, negating the gift element. The Court referred to precedents where partnerships formed for business reasons with capital contributions were not considered gifts for tax purposes. The Court distinguished cases where partnerships involved professional services without capital contributions. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision, exempting the sum of Rs. 94,658 from gift tax, was legally sustainable.
  
  In a separate opinion, the second judge agreed with the decision and had no additional comments. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, confirming that the sum of Rs. 94,658 was not taxable under the Gift-Tax Act, 1958, and directed the Commissioner to pay the assessee's costs for the reference.

  ---

• 1975 (11) TMI 4
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether there was a "transfer of property" under section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act.
  2. Whether there was a "gift" under section 2(xii) and/or section 4(a) of the Gift-tax Act.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Transfer of Property under Section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act:
  
  The first issue to determine was whether there was a "transfer of property" in respect of 40% of the goodwill of the sole proprietary concern of the assessee to his son, Virendra, as a result of the partnership deed dated 25th June, 1958. The court noted that the assessee had been working as a chartered accountant and tax consultant and had formed a partnership with his son, Virendra, who had qualified as a chartered accountant. The partnership deed specified that the net profits and losses would be divided in the proportion of 60% to the assessee and 40% to Virendra.
  
  The court examined the definition of "transfer of property" under section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act, which includes any disposition, conveyance, assignment, settlement, delivery, payment, or other alienation of property. The court observed that by forming the partnership, the assessee enabled Virendra to acquire a 40% interest in the goodwill of the erstwhile sole proprietary concern. This was deemed a transfer of property as per the statutory provisions.
  
  The court referred to the Kerala High Court decision in CGT v. Ganapathy Moothan, where it was held that forming a partnership and transferring goodwill constituted a transfer of property under section 2(xxiv)(b). The court agreed with this view, concluding that there was indeed a transfer of property in this case.
  
  2. Gift under Section 2(xii) and/or Section 4(a) of the Gift-tax Act:
  
  The second issue was whether this transfer constituted a "gift" under section 2(xii) and/or section 4(a) of the Gift-tax Act. The court noted that "gift" is defined under section 2(xii) as a transfer of property made voluntarily and without consideration in money or money's worth. Section 4(a) further provides that where property is transferred otherwise than for adequate consideration, the amount by which the market value of the property exceeds the value of the consideration shall be deemed a gift.
  
  The court analyzed the facts and observed that the partnership agreement did not specifically provide for the transfer of goodwill, nor was there a separate agreement for this purpose. The transfer of goodwill was incidental to the formation of the partnership. The court emphasized that a partnership is a contract supported by consideration, which includes mutual rights and reciprocal obligations.
  
  The court disagreed with the Kerala High Court's conclusion that the transfer amounted to a gift, noting that the consideration for the partnership agreement as a whole should be considered, not just the transfer of goodwill. The court found that the formation of the partnership was supported by consideration, including Virendra's agreement to devote his full time and attention to the partnership business and his acceptance of mutual obligations and liabilities.
  
  The court also referred to several other cases, including decisions from the Madras High Court and the Gujarat High Court, which supported the view that the formation of a partnership involves consideration and does not constitute a gift. The court concluded that the transfer of 40% interest in the goodwill was not without consideration and therefore did not amount to a gift under section 2(xii) or section 4(a) of the Gift-tax Act.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court answered the reframed questions as follows:
  1. Question No. (1) - In the affirmative, confirming that there was a transfer of property under section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act.
  2. Question No. (2) - In the negative, holding that there was no gift under section 2(xii) and/or section 4(a) of the Gift-tax Act.
  
  The Commissioner was ordered to pay the assessee's costs of the reference.

  ---

• 1975 (11) TMI 3
  
  Issues involved: Determination of whether the loss of Rs. 27,420 sustained by the assessee on the sale of Government Loan Bonds is a capital loss or revenue loss.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court of Orissa considered an application by the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act of 1961 regarding the classification of a loss incurred by the assessee on the sale of Government Loan Bonds. The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the sale of furniture and a rolling mill business, claimed a loss of Rs. 29,247, with Rs. 27,420 attributed to the sale of Government Loan Bonds. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim, deeming it a capital investment. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) upheld this decision, but the Tribunal member ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the loss as a revenue expenditure due to a direct nexus between the purchase of securities and business gains. The High Court concurred, emphasizing the factual evidence supporting the revenue loss classification. The Court rejected the argument that the purchase of Government Loan Bonds constituted a capital investment, affirming the loss as a revenue loss.
  
  The Court referenced a previous case to distinguish between capital and revenue losses based on the nature of the investment and its connection to the existing business. Despite acknowledging the principle outlined in the precedent case, the Court emphasized the factual determination in the present case. Noting the timing of the investment and business acquisition, the Court concluded that the loss on Government Loan Bonds was a revenue loss, as it directly contributed to business growth in the same year. The Court dismissed the contention that the investment was capital in nature, highlighting the factual findings supporting the revenue loss classification.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court of Orissa determined that the loss of Rs. 27,420 incurred by the assessee on the sale of Government Loan Bonds was a revenue loss, based on the direct link between the investment and business expansion in the same year. The Court made no order regarding costs, considering the assessee's lack of representation during the hearing. Both judges, N. K. DAS and R. N. MISHRA, concurred with the decision.

  ---

• 1975 (11) TMI 2
  

  Agricultural income in Pakistan was assessed to agricultural Income-Tax in Pakistan separately in each member's hands - Tribunal was right in holding that section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, had no application - held that on the facts appearing from the order of the Tribunal the onus was upon the department to prove that the income in question belonged to the Hindu undivided family - Appeals allowed

  ---

• 1975 (11) TMI 1
  

  Section 10(5A) - held that in enacting sub-section (5A) the legislature was concerned only with providing a head under which the receipt which has been deemed to be income could be brought to tax - held that the compensation paid for the termination of a managing agency business is a payment in relation to the said business and, therefore, the previous year relevant to that receipt would be the same as the previous year for the managing agency business itself

  ---

1 ....34567