Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1986 1986 (9) 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 261 to 265 of 265 Records

• 1986 (9) TMI 6
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding withdrawal of income-tax rebate based on dividends declared by the company.
  2. Determination of requirements of Para. F of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1965 in proceedings under section 154.
  3. Identification of a mistake apparent from the record in the withdrawal of income-tax rebate under specific provisions of the Finance Act, 1965.
  4. Justification of the company being classified as one in which the public are substantially interested.
  5. Validity of relying on the assessment order for 1964-65 to determine the company's status for the 1965-66 assessment.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The High Court of Rajasthan addressed various questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the interpretation of provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Finance Act, 1965. The case involved a dispute over the withdrawal of income-tax rebate based on dividends declared by the company. The court examined whether the withdrawal of the rebate was in line with the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court determined that the withdrawal of the rebate was not opposed to the mentioned provisions, thus resolving the first issue.
  
  Regarding the second issue, the court affirmed that the requirements of Para. F of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1965 could be determined in proceedings under section 154. This decision provided clarity on the procedural aspect of addressing such requirements during assessments or rectifications.
  
  Moving on to the third issue, the court identified a mistake apparent from the record in the withdrawal of the income-tax rebate under specific provisions of the Finance Act, 1965. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that there was indeed a mistake in the calculation of the rebate amount, leading to a reduction in the allowable relief.
  
  Concerning the fourth and fifth issues, the court justified the classification of the company as one in which the public are substantially interested. The court supported the Tribunal's reliance on the assessment order for 1964-65 to determine the company's status for the 1965-66 assessment, emphasizing the continuity of the company's status as being of public interest.
  
  In conclusion, the court provided detailed explanations and interpretations of the relevant legal provisions to address the issues raised in the case. The judgment clarified the application of the law in determining income-tax rebates, company classifications, and procedural aspects of assessments under the Income-tax and Finance Acts.

  ---

• 1986 (9) TMI 5
  
  Issues:
  1. Provisional assessment under the Estate Duty Act
  2. Rectification of assessment order under section 61 of the Act
  3. Charging of interest at the rate of 6 per cent.
  4. Deduction of Rs. 16,106 from the estate of the deceased
  5. Alternative remedy of appeal under section 62 of the Act
  6. Issuance of separate challans for estate duty payment
  7. Charging of interest for belated filing of the return
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The petitioner filed the estate duty return after the death of the deceased, and the Assistant Controller made a provisional assessment under section 57 of the Estate Duty Act, creating a demand of Rs. 2,12,872. The petitioner objected to the provisional assessment, leading to a regular assessment completed in 1981.
  
  2. The petitioner found mistakes in the final assessment order and made an application under section 61 of the Act for rectification. The Assistant Controller rectified the mistake, but the petitioner was dissatisfied and filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order under section 61.
  
  3. The petitioner contested the charging of interest at 6 per cent., arguing it was excessive. The court held that under section 70, the Assistant Controller was entitled to charge interest at 6 per cent., as the discretion to charge interest was not wrongly exercised.
  
  4. The petitioner claimed that the deduction of Rs. 16,106 as income-tax dues for the deceased's estate was wrongly withdrawn. The court stated that the mistake could be corrected under section 61, and the petitioner's remedy was to file an appeal under section 62.
  
  5. The court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal under the Act, citing the Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India case to highlight that statutory remedies should be exhausted before seeking relief under article 226 of the Constitution.
  
  6. The petitioner requested separate challans for estate duty payment, arguing for a division of liability. The court rejected this request, stating that the liability was joint and several, allowing the Revenue to realize the duty from either or both parties.
  
  7. Regarding the charging of interest for belated filing of the return, the court found that the Assistant Controller had no authority to charge interest in the absence of an extension granted under section 53(3) of the Act. The court issued a mandamus directing the Assistant Controller not to charge interest for late filing of the return.
  
  In conclusion, the court partially allowed the writ petition, directing the Assistant Controller not to charge interest for late filing of the return, highlighting the importance of statutory remedies and the limitations on the authority to impose interest under the Estate Duty Act.

  ---

• 1986 (9) TMI 4
  
  The High Court of Patna addressed six references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee in line with a previous case. The judgment was transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna.

  ---

• 1986 (9) TMI 3
  
  The High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed a notice issued by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty for potential underassessment. The court stated that the respondent must consider objections filed by the petitioners before making any assessment order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 1986 (9) TMI 2
  

  Appellant, Brooke Bond & Co. Ltd., now known as Brooke Bond Leibig Ltd., is a sterling company carrying on business in tea with its head office in the United Kingdom, The appellant has invested in shares of other tea companies in different parts of the world, and has a hundred percent shareholding in an Indian subsidiary, Brooke Bond (India) Ltd. - held that dividends received is not business income as share holdings are not incidental to assessee's business

  ---

1 ....1011121314