Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1975 1975 (7) 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 133 of 133 Records

• 1975 (7) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Income From Business, Share Income

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... observation of the Supreme Court in Ramniklal s case 1969 74 ITR 57 (SC) cannot, therefore, prevail. It should also be noticed that the Bombay decision in the case of Arvind N. Mafatlal v. Income-tax Officer 1957 32 ITR 350 (Bom) was neither cited nor considered by the Madras and Delhi High Courts in the aforesaid cases. Following the said decision of the Supreme Court we hold that under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the share income of a partner in his assessment should be treated as income derived from profits and gains of business , and, accordingly, assessable under section 10 of the Act. In our view, the Tribunal came to a correct decision and the same should be upheld. In the aforesaid view of the matter we answer the question in favour of the assessee by saying that the sums of Rs. 61,150 and Rs. 31,961 are income from business in the hands of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case we do not propose to make any order as to costs. DEB J.--I agree.

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Computation Of Capital, Retrospective Effect

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... urge has been decided by the Tribunal against the revenue and is now closed. The Supreme Court observed in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anusuya Devi 1968 68 ITR 750, that even where a question was before the court, power should not be exercised for re-opening an enquiry on questions of fact or law which is closed by the order of the Tribunal. In the instant case, the revenue has not even sought to refer any question. For reasons discussed above, we cannot accept the contentions of Mr. Pal. This loan must be held to fall within the proviso to sub-rule (v) to rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act and must be taken into account in order to determine the capital base and/or chargeable profits of the assessee. We answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and question No. 2 in the negative, in favour of the assessee and return our answers accordingly. In view of the divided success, parties will bear their respective costs. DEB J.--I agree.

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 11 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  

  Finding Of Fact, High Court

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... not deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. As it appears, there may be some doubt about the applicability of the Explanation to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act. Whatever that may be, even if the Explanation is applicable in the instant case, the clear finding of the Tribunal is that the assessee had not consciously concealed the particulars of his income and had not deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. The matter is thus concluded by the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety and so that finding is binding on us. That being so, the case does not come under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act and we hold that the Tribunal has correctly cancelled the penalty order in question. We, accordingly, answer the question of law referred in the affirmative and against the department. There will be no order as to costs. B. N. SHARMA J.---I agree.

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessing Officer, Fraud Or Gross Or Wilful Neglect, High Court To Interfere, Interference By High Court

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Commission Paid To Employee

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. We respectfully agree and we hold that, in view of the defects pointed out in this case, a continuance of the present proceedings is not maintainable in law and for securing the ends of justice the same should be quashed. Before we part with the cases, we must make it clear that we have not made any observations on the merits but leave the same open for being decided at the proper stage. In the result, we quash the orders dated January 27, 1975, passed by Sri D. C. Chakraborty, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in case Nos. C/72/75 and C/73/75 pending before him under section 277 of the Income-tax Act. 1961, and the proceedings based thereupon, on the ground that the said proceedings are premature and contrary to the principle of natural justice. The rules are disposed of accordingly. A. N. BANERJEE J.--I agree.

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Carrying On Business, Estate Duty, In Part

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hereafter, by allowing the property on lease to the deceased, they made section 10 applicable to the gift. In fact, the Supreme Court held that the facts were similar to the one in Clifford John Chick v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties 1959 37 ITR (ED) 89 3 EDC 915 (PC) and Ramachandra Gounder s case 1973 88 ITR 448 (SC) was not applicable. Far from helping the revenue the decision only reaffirms our view that the subject-matter of the gift was subject to the rights of the partnership to carry on the business in the premises. It follows, therefore, that the value of Rs. 65,000 of this property is not includible in the principal value of the estate under section 10. We accordingly answer the reference as follows. The sum of Rs. 43,800 was liable to be included in the principal value of the business but the sum of Rs. 65,000 was not liable to be included in the principal value of the estate. As neither side succeeded in the reference, the parties will bear their respective costs.

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, Income Tax Act

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y of penalty or interest under that Act and to Controller of Estate Duty instead of to Income-tax Officer. It appears to us that the provision relating to the payment of duty prior to the filing of an appeal as contained in s. 62 of the E.D. Act, 1953, is an independent provision not dependent on s. 46 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. It does not appear that this proviso was affected by the repeal of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, or the re-enactment of the I.T. Act, 1961. Assuming that in the E.D. Act, 1953, we have to read the corresponding new sections of the I.T. Act, 1961, instead of the old sections of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the proviso to s. 62(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, still remains in force. We cannot accept the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that by implication this proviso should be deemed to have been repealed. In this view of the matter, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. DEB J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Capital Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, In The Nature, Revenue Expenditure

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... business it is properly attributable to capital and is of the nature of capital expenditure. On the other hand, if such an expenditure is made not for the purpose of bringing into existence any such asset or advantage but for running the business or working it with a view to produce profits it is a revenue expenditure. The above distinction has been made in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1955 27 ITR 34 at page 45. The Supreme Court further went on to observe that if the aim and object of the expenditure would determine the character of the expenditure then the source or the manner of the payment or the test of fixed or circulating capital would not arise. By reason of the aforesaid we return our answer to all the questions referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. DEB J.--I agree.

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Valid Notice, Writ Petition

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... B. L. Pal did not cite any other authority on this point. In this view of the matter, we do not accept the contentions of Mr. B. L. Pal and we hold that in the instant case the notice was invalid and that there was an illegality in the issue of the notice. We also hold that the issue of this notice being illegal and the notice being invalid, the ITO had no jurisdiction to proceed thereunder and the assessment which has followed therefrom is also necessarily illegal. The act of reopening sought to be done without jurisdiction can be properly challenged in a writ petition. This rule is, therefore, made absolute. The impugned notice is quashed and the respondents are restrained from taking any action on the basis of the said notice. Assessment, if any, made on the basis of the said notice is also clearly illegal and void and without jurisdiction and the same is also quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Operation of the order will remain stayed for a period of six weeks.

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Additional surcharge, though levied by the Finance Act, 1963, independently of the Income-tax Act, is but a mode of levying tax on a portion of the assessee's income computed in accordance with the definition in section 2(8) of the Act of 1963 - Therefore, the notice of demand u/s 156 of the Income-tax Act can lawfully call for the payment of amount due from an assessee by way of additional surcharge

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Meaning and scope of Explanation 2 to section 24(1) - held that the transactions involving mere transfer of delivery notes and not actual delivery of the goods were of a speculative character as contemplated in Explanation 2 to section 24(1) and the loss could be set off only against speculation profits - assessee's appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the inference of the Tribunal that the profit arising from the sale of shares is assessable as business profit is correct - finding that loss or profit is a trading loss or profit is primarily a finding of fact, though in reaching that finding the Tribunal has to apply the correct test laid down by law. When we see that the Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and applied the correct test, there is no scope for interference with the finding of the Tribunal

  ---

• 1975 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Claim that income is from agriculture - High Court held for the initial assessment year that income is from agriculture - assessee sought refund of tax on the basis of HC's decision for the subsequent years - There is no statutory duty on Central Board to consider applications for refund

  ---

1 ....34567