Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1973 1973 (6) 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 41 to 54 of 54 Records

• 1973 (6) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Debt Owed, Income Tax, Net Wealth, Voluntary Disclosure Of Income

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t containing the charging section, section 4. We have no doubt that the liability is a liability that arose on the valuation date (vide the Supreme Court decision in H. H. Sethu Parvati Bayi v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax 1968 69 ITR 864) and that that liability was a debt owed by the assessees on the valuation dates falling under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Wealth-tax Officer was, therefore, in error in not having deducted the income-tax liability on the various valuation dates for the four years in question on the amounts declared by the assessees under section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1965. We, therefore, allow these writ appeals, set aside the judgment in the original petitions and further set aside exhibits P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-7 in O.P. No. 1511 of 1969, and exhibits P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-9 in O.P. No. 1512 of 1969. The assessees in the two petitions are entitled to their costs including counsel fee which we fix at Rs. 250 in each of the cases.

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Question of Law - Reference - Tribunal after considering the facts holds that the proof were not conclusive to hold that the assessee had undisclosed income - The conclusion of the Tribunal had been reached by it on proper appreciation of the evidence. This was a question of fact. No question of law arises

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 12 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty for concealment - assessee's explanation regarding the discrepancy in stock statement was rejected and the same was treated as his undisclosed income - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a penalty was legally imposable on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act ? " - held that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, a penalty could not be legally imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 11 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Delay in filing return by the partner – sufficient cause - delay was due to the delay in filing the firm file - whether interest for the delay can be levied

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Net Wealth – penalty notice - Whether compensation payable for Agricultural land acquired under Kerala Land Reforms Act is includible in net wealth - Whether a penalty notice which does not indicate the particulars for contravention for which it is issued is valid – held that it is includible in the net wealth of the assessee – further, penalty notice in printed form in which the ground for which penalty was said to be levied was not mentioned by striking out the other grounds was invalid

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Tribunal is right in considering the entirety of evidence and it appears to us the Tribunal has considered the entire evidence available on the question, viz., when did the Hindu undivided family separate or disrupt and when this unequivocal intention of separation was really expressed. Therefore, having considered the entirety of evidence, the Tribunal has recorded that the Hindu undivided family had continued up to 2nd November, 1956, and there is no question of challenging the finding on the ground of perversity or lack of material. In our view, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be assailed

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Partnership – registration - Whether a partnership between karta of HUF and coparceners, wherein the coparceners contribute their separate capital is valid and is entitled to registration - (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a valid and/or genuine partnership amongst C.P. Shah, as representing the Hindu undivided family, and Anubhai Chimanlal and Rajnikant being the son and grandson respectively of C.P. Shah, in their individual or separate capacities ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to cancel the registration under rule 6B ? - Question No. 1 : In the affirmative. Question No. 2 : Not necessary to be answered

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Determining the relief admissible under section 235 - Whether relief under section 80M should be considered - held that the deduction under section 80M should not be considered - Therefore, the assessee is entitled to relief calculated on the entire dividend attributable to the profits of the company assessed to agricultural income-tax and not merely to 40% on that portion

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Certain credits were discovered in the assessee's accounts - these creditors made voluntary disclosure and were assessed to tax - This reference involves the interpretation and effect of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965, and arises out of the reassessment of the income of the applicant on the ground that an undisclosed income of Rs. 90,000 has escaped assessment during the course of the original assessment, which was made on 24th October, 1961, on the total income of Rs. 43,219

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 5 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Amount received by partner during dissolution of the firm in excess of capital invested - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the capital gains derived by the assessee on relinquishment of his share in Malabar Fisheries Co. is exempt under section 47(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" - question that has been referred to us must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  A rule nisi has been served upon the assessee calling upon it to show cause why the three questions referred to therein should not be made a subject-matter of the reference and why the rule nisi should not be made absolute - Whether the question, if an income is attributable to operations in India is one of fact and whether a reference lies to High Court on the Tribunal finding that no income was attributable to operations in India - In our opinion, that finding is not correct and the Tribunal on the material on record clearly came to the conclusion that it has not been established in this case that any of the operations are carried out in India, the income in respect of which is sought to be assessed - There is no question of law for a reference to the High Court

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Petitioner-company owns and runs three paper mills - Assessee producing different varieties of paper - whether tax credit under s. 280ZE is to be computed for each variety of paper - the tax credit is to the computed in respect of each variety or quality of paper which forms a distinct class of goods for the purpose of excise duty and in calculating the rate at which the tax credit is to be computed the quantum of such goods is to be determined not with reference to one particular factory when the goods are manufactured in more than one factory the total quantity of the same class of goods produced in all the factories owned by the person should be considered - There will also be a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to deal with and to decide according to law the application of the petitioner for grant of tax credit certificate

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 2 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee sold away the assets which were previously used for his business in respect of which depreciation was allowed and in the transaction of sale to the company he realised a profit of Rs. 61,330. - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 61,330 is assessable under section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? "

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 1 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the rent received by the applicant-assessee and his co-lessee represents the annual letting value of the building ? "

  ---

123