Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1984 1984 (12) 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 221 to 231 of 231 Records

• 1984 (12) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty, Gift

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... only to the extent that bona fide possession and enjoyment of it was not immediately assumed by the donee and thenceforward retained to the entire exclusion of the donor or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise . The finding that only a part of the income was misappropriated, whether or not such finding was supported by evidence, fails in the application of section 10, because the Tribunal failed to determine the extent that bona fide possession and enjoyment of the properties gifted was not immediately assumed by the donees and thenceforward retained to the entire exclusion of the donor or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise. The Tribunal was, therefore, clearly in error in upholding the inclusion of the entire value of the gifted properties based on the observation that an unspecified extent of the income might have been misappropriated by the deceased. There was not the slightest justification to invoke the provisions of section 10 in the present case.

  ---

• 1984 (12) TMI 10 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... also lacks substance. The entire submission is based upon the assumption that the assessee was precluded by reasonable cause from filing the return till August 2, 1969. On that finding, it was submitted that only one month s penalty could have been levied. The concluded finding being that there was no reasonable cause for not filing the return by June 30, 1969, it must follow that the petitioner had defaulted for two months in filing the return. In our view, therefore, there is no substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the assessee in regard to the second question as well. Our answer, therefore, in regard to the second question as well is that the Revenue authorities were fully justified in imposing the penalty amounting to Rs. 4,644 for two months default. For the reasons stated above, both the questions referred to this court are answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1984 (12) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Capital Gains, Exemptions

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... house are part of the same scheme, the lapse of some time between the sale and purchase makes no difference. The word assessee must be given a wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. There is no warrant for giving too strict an interpretation to the word assessee as that would frustrate the object of granting the exemption and what is more, in the instant case, the very same assessee immediately after the sale of the house, entered into an agreement for purchasing another house and paid a sum of Rs. 1,000 as earnest money and subsequently the legal representative completed the transaction within a period of one year from the date of the death of the deceased. The sale and purchase are two links in the same chain. We are fortified in this view by a decision of the Madras High Court in C. V. Ramanathan v. CIT 1980 125 ITR 191. We accordingly answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.

  ---

• 1984 (12) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty, Property Passing On Death

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... has allowed the Income-tax Officer to reconsider. In form, however, he has set aside the entire order of the Income-tax Officer and remitted the matter. The decision cited by learned counsel is also not an authority for the position that while setting aside the entire order of the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot restrict the enquiry or the points to be considered. Any other construction will only lead to an incongruous position. Though the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave his findings on various items, his ultimate findings, according to learned counsel, is that there should be a fresh enquiry and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer can stick to his earlier view. But, even if he sticks to his earlier view, when it comes up before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it could be reversed. Such a situation should not be created. In the circumstances, therefore, the petition will have to be and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1984 (12) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty, Property Passing On Death

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... xpenditure incurred by the assessee by way of annual lease amount is not for the purpose of raw material or stock-in-trade. The expenditure was incurred for acquiring an asset or an advantage of enduring character and must, therefore, be held capital in nature. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the lease amount paid by the assessee is not allowable as business expenditure in computing the assessee s income for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. We accordingly answer the question in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. After the judgment is pronounced, learned counsel for the assessee made an oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We see no reason to grant leave as we are of the view that this case is not a fit one to appeal to the Supreme Court. Request is rejected.

  ---

• 1984 (12) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ed by reason of the auction sales. We may in this context refer to the decision of the Full Bench of this court in Shah Jitendra Nanalal v. Patel Lallubhai Ishverbhai reported in 1984 25(2) GLR 1001. That is a case where the question that arose was one of enforcement of an agreement for specific performance in respect of an item of property which was contended to be vacant land as defined in section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Considering this question, this court had occasion to hold that conditional decree for specific performance subject to exemption being obtained under section 20 could be passed in that case. Of course, the situation here is not exactly the same but we are referring to the same because it is not as if merely because the land is vacant land, no right whatsoever remains in the owner even before the proceedings are taken under section 10(3) of the Act and possession is assumed. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 1984 (12) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of registration? Following the decision in R.C.N. 65 of 1980 dated 22-11-1984 (CIT v Udayalaxmi Hardware Stores 183 ITR 159 (AP)), the question is answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. No costs.

  ---

• 1984 (12) TMI 4 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  HUF, Reference, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... in the hands of the assessee individually as, according to the judgment of this court, this interest comes to him in the capacity of Hindu undivided family. In these circumstances, this application has been made by the Revenue to ask the Tribunal to make a reference so that the reference could be decided in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the earlier matter. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, a question of law does arise. It is, therefore, directed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal shall state a case and make a reference for answering the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing exclusion of the value of life interest and interest as reversioner from the assessment of the assessee in his individual capacity. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs so far as these applications are concerned.

  ---

• 1984 (12) TMI 3 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Company, False Statement In Verification, Offences And Prosecution

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... dismissed by Ramachandra Raju J., at the time of admission, it deserves to be dismissed against A-11 also. Sri Gopalakrishnamacharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the offences of which A-1 is convicted are compulsorily punishable both with imprisonment and fine and that the circumstance that no sentence of imprisonment can be inflicted on a firm does not exonerate the liability of the firm to receive a sentence of fine. In other words, according to learned counsel for the appellant, the firm can compulsorily be visited with a sentence of fine. I find it, however, difficult to accede to his submission. The question is no longer res integra and is covered by the three decisions in D. C. Goel v. B. L. Verma 1974 93 ITR 63 (Delhi), Kusum Products Ltd. v. S. K. Sinha, ITO 1980 126 ITR 804 (Cal) and Modi Industries Ltd. V. B. C. Goel 1983 144 ITR 496 (All). Following the said decisions, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

  ---

• 1984 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Search and Seizure - writ petition against the prohibitory orders which were issued under section 132(3), to the first respondent with respect to goods in the godowns - abuse of process of court by withdrawal of writ after obtaining exparte injunction - respondent is directed to pay to the petitioner a sum by way of restitution for the quantity of the goods removed from the three godowns so that the position as it obtained prior to the removal of the goods from the three godowns is restored

  ---

• 1984 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Failure to file return within time allowed - Since interest under s. 139(1) has been laid by ITO, it must be preserved that ITO has granted extension of time to file return on the grounds made out by the assessee - hence penalty provision of s. 271(1)(a) does not come into play at all.

  ---

1 ....89101112