Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1966 1966 (11) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 48 of 48 Records
-
1966 (11) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Hotel - expenditure incurred - Whether the assessee was entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 60,000 as revenue expenditure under clause (i) or (xv) of section 10(2) - Held, no
-
1966 (11) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Renewal of registration - firm ... ... ... ... ..... of a minor if the contract is for the purposes mentioned above ... It need hardly be stated that the partnership deed must be construed reasonably. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shah Jethaji Phulchand the Supreme Court reiterated that the partnership deed must be construed reasonably. On the facts of the present case the partnership deed construed reasonably and as a whole cannot possibly lead to the conclusion that the minor was admitted as a full partner. It specifically stated that he was admitted subject to the provisions of section 30 of the Partnership Act only to the benefits of partnership and that his share in the profits was one-seventh and not in the losses. For the reasons given above the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly. The department will pay the costs of the assessee which we assess at Rs. 250. Counsel s fee is also assessed at Rs. 250. Question answered in the affirmative
-
1966 (11) TMI 6 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appellate Assistant Commissioner can call for and receive additional evidence or material not available to the Income-tax Officer at the time of making the best judgment assessment and he has also jurisdiction to remand the matter under section 31(2), but only subject to the limitations
-
1966 (11) TMI 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessee is a stock exchange company - General Public Utility - entitled to exemption u/s 4(3)(I) of the IT Act, 1922.
-
1966 (11) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
IT Act of 1922 - IT Act of1961 - proceedings for enhancement of the petitioner's assessment, including the notice dated April 23, 1966, issued under s. 251(2) of the Act of 1961 are without jurisdiction
-
1966 (11) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty notice under section 28(3) - default in filing the return ... ... ... ... ..... and the legislature should prescribe a reasonable time-limit for completion of all penalty proceedings. The Lahore High Court in Vir Bhan Bansi Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax nearly three decades ago, drew the attention of the Commissioner of Income-tax to the desirability of removing the ambiguity that exists in the language of section 28. For the reasons given above we would answer the question referred by saying that a penalty in respect of the assessment year 1945-46 as a matter of strict law could have been imposed in August, 1957, even though the assessment was completed in March, 1950, but propriety required the changed circumstances to be taken into consideration and the responsibility for the inordinate delay to be fastened before levying the penalty and upholding it. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Counsel s fee is assessed at Rs. 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1966 (11) TMI 2 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - Petitioner was right in challenging the correctness of the order before the HC on the ground that section 36 which is the general section for rectification of mistake will not apply but only section 35
-
1966 (11) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
It is settled law that in a statutory declaration, all the requirements of the section should be and must be strictly complied with literally - otherwise, it may prove fatal to the action proposed to be taken, especially in case where property rights are involved - on the date of the registration of the document there was no statutory declaration prohibiting the registering officer from completing the registration - document could be registered
|
|