Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1985 1985 (1) 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 241 to 244 of 244 Records

• 1985 (1) TMI 4
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding the registration of a partnership firm. The Tribunal's decision to grant registration was upheld, as they found the new partners' roles genuine based on evidence presented. The application was dismissed without further reference to the Tribunal.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 3
  
  Issues:
  1. Competency of the Income-tax Officer to issue notice under section 147(a) before the expiry of the prescribed period under section 139(4)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Justification of the Income-tax Officer's notice under section 147(a) instead of section 147(b) and the time-barred assessment.
  3. Interpretation of the provisions of section 147(a) and section 147(b) for reassessment purposes.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: The petition filed by the assessee under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, sought direction for the Income-tax Tribunal to refer a question regarding the competency of the Income-tax Officer to issue a notice under section 147(a) before the expiry of the prescribed period under section 139(4)(b)(iii). The Tribunal had already referred a question related to the applicability of section 153(2)(a) and section 153(1)(c) in the case.
  
  Issue 2: The Tribunal held that since no return of income was filed by the assessee before the notice under section 148 was issued by the Income-tax Officer, there was an omission and failure on the part of the assessee, allowing the Income-tax Officer to invoke jurisdiction under section 147(a). The Tribunal further clarified the distinction between section 147(a) and section 147(b), emphasizing that section 147(b) is applicable for reassessment purposes only, while section 147(a) covers cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to the assessee's omission or failure to file a return.
  
  Issue 3: The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that no assessment had been made earlier by the Income-tax Officer as the assessee had not filed a return of total income. The court agreed that the case fell under section 147(a) as there was no return filed by the assessee before the notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer. The court dismissed the reference application, stating that the provisions of section 147(a) were correctly applied, and there was no error in the Tribunal's decision.
  
  In conclusion, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the competency of the Income-tax Officer to issue a notice under section 147(a) in the given circumstances, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between section 147(a) and section 147(b) for assessing cases of escaped income chargeable to tax.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 2
  
  The High Court of Allahabad dismissed an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, regarding the assessability of income from letting out rooms by Cawnpore Club Ltd. The court held that the income was assessable as income from other sources, not as income from house property. The court cited previous decisions on similar matters and concluded that the question raised did not warrant a referral to the court.

  ---

• 1985 (1) TMI 1
  

  Interpretation of s. 80J - validity of rule 19A - constitutionality of the retrospective amendment made in s. 80J, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 - held that Rule 19A(3) of IT Rules 1962 which excludes borrowed monies and debts and long term borrowings in the computation of "capital employment" by a new industrial undertaking for purposes of s. 80J is valid and within the authority conferred on CBDT under s. 80J

  ---

1 ....910111213