Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1977 1977 (3) 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 121 to 132 of 132 Records

• 1977 (3) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment Notice, Banking Company, Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Income Escaped Assessment, Income Tax Act, Notice For Reassessment, Original Assessment, Reassessment Notice

  ---

• 1977 (3) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Acquisition Of Immovable Property, Appellate Authority, Movable Property, Stamp Duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ls to the file of the appellate authority for further hearing and disposal according to law in the light of our observations above. We may incidentally observe that in a case like the present one, where alternative arguments on facts are possible and varying findings can be given, it is desirable that the appellate authority gives all findings of fact and not dispose of the matter merely on a point of law. This would facilitate final disposal of the matter by the High Court, whose jurisdiction is limited merely to the question of law by the added Chap. XX-A. This is a normal approach in all civil matters unless of course a point of law is already decided by the highest court of this land and it is not worthwhile making all the exercises in going through the complicated facts required for the decision of this case. Bearing this in mind, the appellate authority will dispose of these appeals. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of these appeals.

  ---

• 1977 (3) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Concealment Penalty, Levy Of Penalty, Notice Of Penalty, Penalty Notice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... escribed in the Act, there is absolutely no room for any say on it on our part. In these circumstances, the second question also is devoid of merit and has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Now, coming to the third point, namely, whether the Tribunal was justified in inferring on the materials that the assessee firm was guilty of concealment, we have already extracted the letter dated 26th February, 1970, in which the assessee had agreed to the levy of penalty. In those circumstances, there is absolutely no merit in this contention also, because when once the leviability of penalty is agreed to, it follows that the assessee agreed that there was concealment attracting the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This question also has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. All the questions are answered in the manner indicated above. The respondent will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee is Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only).

  ---

• 1977 (3) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Accounting Year, Firm Registration, Income Tax Act, Partnership Deed

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... urther, if the declaration is defective and the assessee has not rectified the same within the time given, any order passed by the ITO would be under s. 185(1)(b) and hence such an order is appealable under s. 246(j) either from the view point of s. 185(1)(b) or s. 185(3) of the Act. Patently, this decision does not help the contention of Shri Mangachari. The defect in the application of the assessee for registration in the present case is basic and fundamental. The partnership deed in accordance with which the business was done in the relevant year 1961 is invalid. It has been so found by a Division Bench of this court on the earlier occasion. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee cannot take advantage of the latter partnership deed to secure registration for the year 1961. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The revenue will have its costs from the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1977 (3) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Enduring Benefit, Expenditure Incurred

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... was merely acting as an agent of the board in the construction of the quarters. If the assessee had constructed the quarters within the maximum amount prescribed by the board, the assessee would not have incurred any expenditure from its funds. The extra expenditure had to be incurred as the assessee could not construct the quarters according to the specifications of the Board with the amount allotted by the Board. Under the circumstances, it is more than clear that the assessee incurred the expenditure not for the purpose of bringing into existence an enduring benefit for its business but for carrying on its business profitably. For the reasons recorded, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 1,06,333 and Rs. 2,55,103 as revenue expenditure for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, respectively. The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee. The revenue shall pay to the assessee the costs of the reference. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1977 (3) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Agricultural Income Tax, Insurance Premia, Powers Of Commissioner

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e dutiable estate by virtue of s. 34(4) of the Act. There was nothing to show in the judgment that the said sum was not available as on the date of death of the deceased. As a matter of fact, the judgment proceeds on the basis that it was shown as the share of the profits of the donees in the balance-sheet. If so, the money was available on the date of death of the deceased and since it legally belonged to him by virtue of the finding of the authorities that under s. 9(1) the gift could be ignored and the gifted property could be included in the dutiable estate, the income from the gifted property also was rightly included in the dutiable estate. But as we pointed out already, the position in the present case is different and, therefore, the said decision has no application to the present case. For these reasons, we answer the second question in the negative and in favour of the accountable person. Since the parties have succeeded in part, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1977 (3) TMI 6 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Prosecution

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nt of this court in S.J.C. No. 224 of 1974 disposed of on December 15, 1976. CIT v. Biju Patnaik 1978 112 ITR 555 (Orissa) . In that event, the finding arrived at by this court that the alleged omission in the return was not intentional must be held to be conclusive and the petitioner must be entitled to an acquittal. So, it will not serve any useful purpose if the case goes back for further enquiry as ordered by the learned Additional Sessions judge. So far as the other points raised by Mr. Patnaik in support of the revision, viz., that a revision before the Additional Sessions judge was incompetent and that there was no verified statement as required under s. 277 of the I.T. Act are concerned, it is not necessary to decide them, as, upon the conclusions reached by me otherwise this revision is bound to succeed . For all the reasons given above, I allow the revision, set aside the impugned order of the court below and restore the order of discharge passed by the trial court.

  ---

• 1977 (3) TMI 5 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Question Of Law

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... partment as no opportunity was given to it ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 8,000 imposed by the Inspecting Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax under section 271 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? The order of the Tribunal shows that from certain circumstances in the case, it (the Tribunal) inferred that the assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs. 7,000 at the persuasion of the ITO. It is well settled that the evidence may be direct or circumstantial. It is quite clear that there was circumstantial evidence which formed the basis for the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal. Hence, question No. 1 does not call for reference to this court. As question No. 2 is based on question No. 1, it follows that question No. 2 also does not call for reference to this court. In the result we dismiss this application. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1977 (3) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Fixed Deposit - Hindu undivided family - deposits in the name of karta's wife - whether penalty proceedings under s. 28(1)(c) of the 1922 Act can be inititated for the failure to disclose the income from the deposits - materials available showed that the amounts of deposits actually belonged to the assessee - No question of law arose out of the Tribunal's order - assessee's appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 1977 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Question Of Fact - question of explaining the sources for the credits in assessee's books is one of fact - High Court did not take into account relevant facts - High Court's order were reversed - Assessee's appeal is allowed

  ---

• 1977 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Goods Or Merchandise - Central Government was entitled to issue notification directing that tax credit certificate shall be granted in respect of specified goods with effect from a particular date - Assessee's appeal dismissed

  ---

• 1977 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Diversion by Overriding Title - special surcharge collected by a sports club from local charities in addition to the normal admission fees for races - It cannot become part of the assessee's income - Revenue's appeal dismissed

  ---

1 ....34567