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 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 41 to 54 of 54 Records

• 1973 (6) TMI 14
  
  Issues:
  - Whether the entirety of the income declared by the petitioners under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, is liable to be taxed for determining their taxable wealth.
  - Whether the income-tax due on the income declared under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, should be deducted from the income declared to arrive at the net wealth assessable to wealth-tax.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeals arose from the dismissal of two petitions where the petitioners argued that the income declared under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, should not be entirely taxed for determining their taxable wealth. They contended that income-tax due on the declared income must be deducted to arrive at the net wealth assessable to wealth-tax. The definition of "net wealth" in section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was crucial in this regard, as it specified the calculation method for determining net wealth. The valuation date for the assessment years in question was established to be crucial, and the petitioners argued that income-tax liabilities on the declared income should be considered as debts owed by them on the valuation dates.
  
  The petitioners had declared their income under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, and the assessing authorities had accepted this declaration, levying tax accordingly. However, the petitioners argued that the tax levied under section 68 should be deducted from the income declared to determine their net wealth assessable to wealth-tax. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1966] 59 ITR 767, which clarified the concept of "debt owed" under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The court emphasized that income-tax liabilities, whether present or future but ascertainable, should be considered as debts owed by the assessees on the valuation dates.
  
  The court analyzed the provisions of section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, in conjunction with section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to determine the liability of the assessees. It concluded that the Finance Act, 1965, only specified the tax rate and the income to be taxed, while the liability stemmed from the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the income-tax liability was a debt owed by the assessees on the valuation dates, as per the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Consequently, the Wealth-tax Officer was found to be in error for not deducting the income-tax liability from the declared income for the relevant assessment years. The court allowed the writ appeals, set aside the original judgment, and ruled in favor of the petitioners, granting them costs.

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 13
  

  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
  

  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
  
  Issues:
  - Interpretation of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the filing of returns and levy of interest.
  - Consideration of whether a return filed under sub-section (4) of section 139 should be deemed as a return under section 139(1).
  - Examination of the power of the Income-tax Officer to reduce or waive interest payable under section 139.
  - Assessment of whether the delay in filing returns by partners is justified when the firm files its return beyond the due date.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The High Court of Mysore, in a batch of twelve writ petitions under the Income-tax Act, 1961, addressed common issues regarding the interpretation of section 139 of the Act. The court's judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Govinda Bhat, involved a partner of a contracting firm who filed a revised return after the firm had done so. The Income-tax Officer levied interest under section 139, prompting the petitioner to challenge this decision. The court considered the contention that returns filed under sub-section (4) of section 139 should be deemed as returns under section 139(1) to determine if interest should be charged. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision and noted that interest could be charged as per the provisions of the Act, even if a return was filed under sub-section (4) of section 139.
  
  Another issue raised was the power of the Income-tax Officer to reduce or waive interest under section 139. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing returns should be considered justified, citing a previous court decision. The court acknowledged the principle but emphasized that the petitioner should have filed the return promptly after the firm's filing. The court found that the Commissioner's decision to charge interest based on the initial due date was incorrect. Despite the petitioner's failure to raise this argument before the Commissioner, the court held that the law as established by the court was binding on the Commissioner.
  
  Consequently, the court quashed the orders of the Commissioner related to the levy of interest under section 139(1) and directed a reassessment of the sufficiency of the cause for not filing returns within the due dates. The court's decision was based on the principles established in previous court rulings. The judgment highlighted the importance of promptly filing returns and the necessity for considering all relevant factors in determining the applicability of interest under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1973 (6) TMI 10
  

  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
  

  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
  

  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
  

  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
  

  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
  

  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
  

  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
  

  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
  

  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
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of annual letting value for taxation purposes based on rent received by the assessee. Evaluation of evidence regarding the determination of annual letting value by the assessing authorities. Application of relevant legal provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Kerala Panchayats (Building Tax) Rules, 1963 in determining annual rental value.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment by the High Court of Kerala addressed the issue of whether the Tribunal was justified in determining the rent received by the applicant-assessee as the annual letting value of the building for taxation purposes. The assessee had let out a building for an annual rent of Rs. 33,000 to a company, with the land leased separately. The assessing authority fixed the annual value at Rs. 33,000, which was confirmed in subsequent appeals. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court decision that the notional income for taxation could differ from the actual rent received. However, the Tribunal rejected evidence provided by the assessee regarding the annual letting value determined by the local authority, stating lack of clarity on when it was fixed and insufficient material presented to the assessing authorities.
  
  The High Court analyzed the evidence presented by the assessee, particularly a certificate showing the annual letting value fixed by the local authority at Rs. 18,000. The Court noted that the certificate indicated the rent for which the building was let out and the lessee's name, suggesting awareness of the lease terms by the assessing authorities. The Court deemed the rejection of this evidence by the Tribunal as unjustified, as the certificate provided relevant information for determining the reasonable rent expected from the building. The Court emphasized that the assessing authorities likely considered various factors, including prevailing rents and the nature of the property, in fixing the annual letting value.
  
  Furthermore, the Court highlighted the similarity between the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Kerala Panchayats (Building Tax) Rules, 1963, regarding the determination of annual rental value. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's finding was flawed as it failed to consider relevant material and upheld the contention of the assessee that the contract rent exceeded the reasonable rent expected from the building. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, answering the question referred in the negative and awarding costs to the assessee. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence and legal provisions in determining the annual letting value for taxation purposes.

  ---

123