Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1981 1981 (10) 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 141 to 147 of 147 Records

• 1981 (10) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment, HUF, Partition, Wealth Tax Act, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... stating that there was no change in the constitution of the firm or in the shares of the partners. It is with reference to the filing of such a declaration that the ITO is given power to condone the delay if he was satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the declaration within the time allowed under the law. The circular does not prima facie deal with cases arising under s. 185. Therefore, even assuming that we have to consider the circular in interpreting the provisions of the Act, we are not satisfied that the assessee can derive any assistance from the said circular. However, we would not stand in the way of the assessee getting any benefit if the Board is satisfied, on being moved by the assessee, that the circumstances of this case would warrant the application of the said circular. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The Department will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.

  ---

• 1981 (10) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Acquisition Of Property To Prevent Evasion Of Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... uthority. In the present case the document was registered on September 21, 1977, and it is not in dispute that the proceedings have been initiated by the officer within the period of limitation as provided under the section. Shri Tijoriwala desired to urge that the provisions of s. 269C of the Act contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed under arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, but the learned counsel very correctly stated that this question need not be decided at the present stage because the petitioners have approached this court against only the issuance of the notice. The learned counsel reserved his right to challenge the validity of the section if in future the Competent Authority decides to acquire the property. In my judgment, the action initiated is in accordance with law and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the petition fails and the rule is discharged, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1981 (10) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Advance Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... to the Tribunal as the relevant trust deed had not been annexed to the statement of the case and, as, therefore, it was not possible to answer the question referred to therein. On the same lines, in T.C. No. 22 of 1975, by judgment dated February 4, 1978 (CIT v. Inland Agencis P. Ltd.- 1983 143 ITR 195, this court again remitted the matter for consideration by the Tribunal. It may be mentioned here that T.C. No. 22 of 1975 arose from the order of the Tribunal dated January 31, 1974, which has been followed in the present case. As the matter has already been restored to the Tribunal on earlier occasions, similarly in the present case also, we do not think it possible to answer the question referred. We, therefore, restore the matter for reconsideration by the Tribunal in the light of the facts and in accordance with the law. The assessee will be entitled to its costs, as it has succeeded on the main question that arose in the present reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. One set.

  ---

• 1981 (10) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rovisions of s. 271(1)(a) of the Act read with the Explanation to which we have earlier made reference. The following two questions of law have been referred to us by the Tribunal. But, it is not disputed that both the questions can be answered by reference to the amended provisions in the manner we have already indicated. Questions of law (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in the determination of the amount of tax on which the penalty is to be levied under section 271(1)(a) ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the tax paid in pursuance of the provisional assessment made under section 141 should be deducted from the tax determined as chargeable for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) ? Our answer to the two questions is in the negative and against the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1981 (10) TMI 3 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... IAC on the date of hearing and that, therefore, there was no reasonable opportunity to him to meet the proposed penalty. It is clear from the facts that the assessee had the opportunity of filing his explanation to the show-cause notice. Even assuming that he fell ill and this was the reason for his non-appearance, the Tribunal heard him at length on merits. In the circumstances, in our opinion, there was no prejudice to the assessee for want of any adjournment before the IAC and it cannot be said that no reasonable opportunity had been provided to the assessee. For the reasons given above, we answer the questions as follows (1) The Tribunal was right in holding that the order imposing penalty was passed within limitation under s. 275. (2) The Tribunal was right in holding that reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner for being heard against the proposed penalty. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the Department. Counsel s fee Rs. 100 if certified.

  ---

• 1981 (10) TMI 2 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Developement Rebate, State Electricity Board

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ery fairly brought to our notice the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Addl. CIT v. Subhlaxmi Mills Ltd. 1975 100 ITR 188, in which a contrary view has been taken. On the finding reached by us that the Board was covered by the Proviso to section 34(3)(a) and was, therefore, not required to create a development rebate reserve, it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether when an assessee suffers loss, the condition of creation of reserve has to be complied with or not. For the reasons given above, we answer the questions as follows (1) The Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was covered by the first proviso to section 34(3)(a) and, therefore, exempt from providing and maintaining a development rebate reserve. (2) The Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of the assessee to the allowance of development rebate amounting to Rs. 7,60,11,975. The assessee will get the costs of this reference from the Department. Counsel s fee Rs. 100, if certified.

  ---

• 1981 (10) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Allocation Of Shares Of Partners, Appeal To AAC, Firm, Loss

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n, section 247 confers on a partner of a firm the right or privilege to file an appeal questioning the assessment on the firm as well as the allocation of the share of income as between the different partners. It is not for a court of construction to overlook this provision merely for the reason that under a rational system of appeal, it would be more sensible to leave the subject of allocation of the firm s income as between the partners as a fit subject of appeal in the hands of each partner concerned, rather than treat it as a matter of general importance to the partnership as a whole. For the reasons stated above, we do not agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal that the firm was not competent to question the allocation of share income as between the partners in an appeal against the firm s assessment. The second question of law is, therefore, answered in the negative and against the Department. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

1 ....45678