Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (7) 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 60 of 77 Records

• 1972 (7) TMI 53
  
  Issues:
  Application under section 559 of the Companies Act, 1956 for declaring dissolution of a company void due to alleged fraudulent activities during assessment proceedings.
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court of Kerala considered an application by the Income-tax Officer under section 559 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking to declare the dissolution of a private company as void. The company was dissolved by the court in 1970, and the petitioner alleged that the company engaged in clandestine business transactions to evade assessments. However, the court noted that the period of limitation for exercising power under section 559 had expired, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
  
  The company in question was dissolved following a scheme for amalgamation with a public company, and the official liquidator reported no prejudicial conduct. The petitioner's claims of fraudulent activities were contested by the second respondent. The court emphasized that the application under section 559 must be made within two years of the dissolution, highlighting the limitation period for court orders, not just the application filing.
  
  The court rejected the argument that delays in court proceedings should extend the limitation period, emphasizing the legislative intent behind the prescribed timeline. Reference was made to a similar provision in the English Companies Act and the distinction between limitations for court orders and application filings. The court concluded that the jurisdiction to pass an order under section 559 expires after two years from the company's dissolution.
  
  Additionally, the court highlighted the procedural requirements for applications under section 559, including notice to relevant authorities. The petitioner's failure to provide proper notice within the prescribed timeline further contributed to the dismissal of the application as time-barred. The court also addressed the futility of setting aside the dissolution when the company had no remaining assets or liabilities post-amalgamation.
  
  In conclusion, the court dismissed the company petition, emphasizing that the jurisdiction under section 559 cannot be exercised due to the expiration of the limitation period and the lack of remaining assets in the dissolved company. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and procedural requirements in such cases.

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 44
  
  Issues:
  Conviction under section 209(4)(a) of the Companies Act for failure to allow inspection of nomination papers.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment revolves around the conviction of the petitioner, the secretary of a company, under section 209(4)(a) of the Companies Act for failure to allow inspection of nomination papers. The petitioner was convicted by the Sixth Presidency Magistrate and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or face simple imprisonment for one month. The circumstances leading to the prosecution involved a dispute at the 97th annual general meeting of the company, where the complainant, a director-treasurer, requested to inspect nomination papers but was denied access by the petitioner. The petitioner, acting as the secretary, sought orders from the president regarding the inspection request.
  
  The court analyzed the provisions of the Companies Act, specifically section 209(4)(a), which mandates that books of accounts and other relevant papers should be open to inspection by directors during business hours. The court delved into the interpretation of the term "other books and papers" within the context of the Act. It cited legal principles such as noscuntur a sociis and ejusdem generis to interpret the legislative intent behind the provision. The court emphasized that the expression "other books and papers" should be construed restrictively to include only documents of a similar nature to books of account. The court highlighted the legislative history of the provision, noting that the amendment aimed to cover specific records related to production, processing, manufacturing, or mining activities, not general documents like nomination papers.
  
  Ultimately, the court concluded that the failure of the secretary to allow inspection of the nomination papers did not constitute an offense under section 209(4)(a) of the Companies Act. The court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner, acquitting them of the alleged offense. The judgment allowed the criminal revision, directing the refund of the fine if already collected from the petitioner.

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 35
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Determination of whether the land in question is "agricultural land" within the meaning of section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
  2. Relevance of the intention of the owner and actual use of the land in determining its nature.
  3. Impact of surrounding development and changes in land use on the classification of the land.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Determination of whether the land in question is "agricultural land" within the meaning of section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:
  The core issue is whether the land co-owned by the assessee qualifies as agricultural land under section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, thereby exempting it from wealth-tax. The land was initially used for agricultural purposes, but the assessee obtained permission for non-agricultural use and parceled it into plots for sale. The Tribunal found that despite the temporary agricultural use, the land's nature had fundamentally changed to non-agricultural due to its location, development, and the owner's intention to sell it for residential purposes.
  
  2. Relevance of the intention of the owner and actual use of the land in determining its nature:
  The court referenced the case of Rasiklal Chimanlal Nagri v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, emphasizing that the owner's intention, while relevant, is not the sole determinant of land classification. The actual use of the land provides prima facie evidence of its nature. However, temporary agricultural use does not necessarily define the land as agricultural if other factors indicate a non-agricultural character. The court highlighted that the land's use, development in the surrounding area, and the owner's long-term intentions must all be considered.
  
  3. Impact of surrounding development and changes in land use on the classification of the land:
  The court noted that the land's location within municipal limits, the permission for non-agricultural use, and the surrounding development significantly influenced its classification. The land was parceled into plots, a substantial portion was sold for residential purposes, and it was situated near developed areas with public and private buildings. These factors collectively indicated a shift from agricultural to non-agricultural land. The court also mentioned that the land's sale to non-agriculturists, permissible only after obtaining non-agricultural use permission, further supported this conclusion.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the land had ceased to be agricultural due to the cumulative effect of various factors, including its location, development, and the owner's actions and intentions. The Tribunal's finding that the land was non-agricultural was upheld. The court affirmed that the assessee failed to prove that the land was agricultural on the relevant valuation dates, answering the referred question in the affirmative and awarding costs to the Commissioner.

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 34
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Interpretation of the partnership deed concerning the sharing of losses among partners.
  2. Whether the registration of the firm under section 26A was rightly allowed despite the deed not specifying the sharing of losses.
  3. Justification of the Tribunal's decision to condone defects in the application for registration.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Interpretation of the Partnership Deed Concerning the Sharing of Losses Among Partners:
  The primary issue was whether the partnership deed sufficiently specified the shares of the adult partners in the losses incurred by the firm. The deed stated that profits or losses would be divided among the partners but did not explicitly mention the sharing of losses among the adult partners. The court distinguished between cases where no provision for sharing losses is made and cases where such a provision is made but is unclear. The court emphasized that the document should be read as a whole to determine the intent of the parties. It concluded that the deed did specify the shares of the major partners in the losses, taking 93 paise as the unit for apportionment of losses, thereby satisfying the requirements of section 26A of the Income-tax Act.
  
  2. Whether the Registration of the Firm Under Section 26A Was Rightly Allowed:
  The court held that the registration was rightly allowed for the assessment year 1959-60. It stated that the shares of the adult partners in the losses were specified in the partnership deed, and thus, the registration could not be refused on that account. The court referenced several cases, including Addepally Nageswara Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which supported the view that as long as the shares can be worked out according to the specification made in the deed, the registration cannot be refused.
  
  3. Justification of the Tribunal's Decision to Condone Defects in the Application for Registration:
  The third issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning defects in the application for registration. The Tribunal had allowed the firm's application for registration despite the omission of shares in profits in column 6 of the application. The court reframed the question to focus on whether the order of refusal of registration could be sustained on the ground that the assessee had omitted to show the shares of the partners in the application. It held that the omission was a minor, curable defect and that the Income-tax Officer should have given the assessee an opportunity to rectify it. The court emphasized that the intent of the law is not to refuse registration on technical, immaterial defects. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in not sustaining the order of refusal of registration on that ground.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court answered the first part of the first question in the affirmative, stating that the shares of the major partners in the losses were specified in the partnership deed. Consequently, the registration was rightly allowed for the assessment year 1959-60. The court also answered the reframed third question in the negative, supporting the Tribunal's decision to condone the defects in the application for registration. The department was ordered to pay the costs of the assessee.

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 33
  
  Issues:
  - Entitlement to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
  - Condonation of delay in filing the application for registration
  - Interpretation of sufficient cause for delay in the context of the Income-tax Act
  - Influence of main question findings on the decision regarding the delay issue
  
  Entitlement to Registration under Section 26A:
  The case involved the question of whether an assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The firm, initially consisting of two partners, underwent a change in constitution in 1956. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the application for registration made in 1959 was barred by time as it was considered the first application for a new firm. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the events in 1956 did not make the firm new, and there was no limitation of time for the application. The Tribunal further held that the delay in filing the application should have been condoned, allowing the firm's registration with all benefits.
  
  Condonation of Delay:
  The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee regarding the condonation of delay in filing the registration application. The Tribunal considered an affidavit filed by the firm's accountant in support of the explanation for the delay. It noted that the firm was genuine, and no defects were pointed out by the department regarding the firm's constitution or registration form. The Tribunal believed the explanation and held that the delay should be condoned, emphasizing that no counter-affidavit or material was filed by the department to challenge the explanation.
  
  Interpretation of Sufficient Cause for Delay:
  The judgment discussed the interpretation of "sufficient cause" for delay in the context of the Income-tax Act. It distinguished the principles applicable to civil litigation under section 5 of the Limitation Act, stating that the purpose of section 26A was to verify the genuineness of firms, not to vest rights in the department. The judgment emphasized that no separate written application or prayer for condonation of delay was required under the Income-tax Act or Rules.
  
  Influence of Main Question Findings:
  The judgment addressed the argument that the Tribunal's opinion on the main question influenced its decision on the delay issue. It concluded that the Tribunal's findings on both points were independent, and the opinion on sufficient cause for delay was not affected by the determination that the firm was not new and not time-barred. The judgment affirmed that the finding on the delay issue was a question of fact and not vitiated by any error of law.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, stating that the firm was entitled to registration. The Court awarded costs to the assessee and assessed the fee of the department's counsel. The judgment highlighted that even if other questions were decided differently, the outcome would remain the same due to the condonation of delay, making further discussion unnecessary.

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 32
  
  The High Court of Andhra Pradesh declined to answer a reference under the Gift-tax Act as the assessee expressed disinterest in pursuing the matter. The court cited previous decisions where parties failing to appear or showing lack of interest resulted in the court refusing to answer the reference. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the department. Advocate's fee was set at Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 31
  

  Hyderabad Income Tax Act - " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment on the association was invalid? (2) Whether the Tribunal was within its powers to re-hear the entire appeal and decide all issues which did not form the subject-matter of the reference before the High Court without any direction from the High Court? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has the power under law to uphold the ex parte assessment on the basis of an alleged non-compliance by D. D. Italia when the Income-tax Officer making the ex parte assessment did not refer to that default at all in the assessment order ?"

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 30
  
  Issues:
  - Whether the petitioner is entitled to have assessment records produced in court through the Income-tax Officer?
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a money suit where the petitioner stood surety for payment of a debt. The plaintiff, a registered money-lender, had initially claimed the debt but later amended his statement regarding discontinuation of money-lending business during the transaction period. The defendants contended that the suit was not valid under the Orissa Money-Lenders Act. During the trial, the petitioner filed applications to summon the Income-tax Officer for assessment records of the plaintiff. The court initially directed the petitioner to obtain certified copies but later rejected further requests. The petitioner argued that the assessment records were necessary for the case.
  
  The court examined the relevant statutory provisions under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Income-tax Act, 1961. It highlighted the confidentiality of information under these Acts and the restrictions on disclosure by public servants. The court noted the amendments in the 1961 Act, particularly section 138(1)(b), which empowered the Commissioner to disclose information in the public interest. The court emphasized that after the Finance Act, 1964, there was no general declaration of confidentiality for assessment documents, and courts were not barred from summoning such particulars.
  
  Consequently, the court held that section 138(1)(b) was an enabling provision, and courts retained the authority to summon the Income-tax Officer for documents not prohibited or privileged. The court concluded that the lower judge erred in refusing to summon the Income-tax Officer, as it was within the court's jurisdiction to request the assessment records. Therefore, the court allowed the application, set aside the lower judge's order, and directed the judge to handle the application in accordance with the law and observations provided. No costs were awarded in the circumstances.

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 29
  

  Whether bonus paid by an assessee to its workmen out of the profits of the previous year after the relevant valuation date is debt owed by the assessee so as to be deductible in computing the net wealth of the assessee - in the present case, it is apparent from the record that the claim of the workmen was settled and the amount of bonus determined subsequent to the relevant valuation date. This factual position was indeed not disputed on behalf of the assessee. If that be so, it must follow as a necessary consequence that liability for payment of bonus did not become a "debt owed" by the assessee until after the relevant valuation date and it was accordingly not deductible in computing the net wealth of the assessee

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 28
  

  Whether the assessee's claim in each assessment year for allowance of a sum by way of development rebate in respect of the machinery and plant, etc., installed in one of the industrial units run by it was rightly disallowed - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had the power and jurisdiction to direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain and take into consideration the assessee's contention that the profits on sale of certain machinery were not taxable since the business was not in existence at any time during the relevant previous years

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 27
  

  This reference raises a short but interesting question as to what is the date from which bonus shares issued by a company can be said to be held by an assessee: is it the date when they are issued or is it the date the original shares in respect of which they are issued were acquired by the assessee ? The question assumes importance because when bonus shares are sold by the assessee and there is capital gain, the incidence of tax on such capital gain varies according as the bonus shares are short-term capital assets or long-term capital assets. If they are short term capital assets, the incidence is higher : if they are long-term capital assets, the incidence is lower : and the question whether they are short term capital assets or long-term capital assets depends on how long they have been held by the assessee immediately preceding the date of transfer

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 26
  

  These seven petitions being Criminal Revisions Nos. 49 to 55 of 1971, result from the recommendation made by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the sentences awarded to the respondents be enhanced so as to make them in conformity with the provisions of section 276B - Whether it is necessary to state particulars of each deduction from each employee and date of deduction in the notice regarding prosecution for failure to deposit the tax deducted amount with Central Government in time - whether an offence under s. 276B is committed, when deduction was made before 1st April 1968 and not deposited by that date

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 25
  

  This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution and raises an interesting question relating to the interpretation of sections 32 and 75 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - When the loss of a registered firm is allocated to the partners, whether the firm is entitled to carry forward and set off the loss for the purposes of the " firm tax - partners alone can carry forward any loss which remains unabsorbed as per section 32(2) and 75(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 - firm as such cannot carry forward the losses determined in its assessments - Petition dismissed

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 24
  

  Civil Suit - Interest On Refund - UOI did not press this issue. Otherwise also a suit cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the plaintiffs have not given their addresses within the jurisdiction of the court as required by rule 3 of Chapter 3 of the Delhi High Court Rules. This omission can always be corrected - The learned counsel for the Union argued that CIT has not been made a party to the suit and, therefore, the suit is defective. I do not agree with this contention. It is not necessary to make the CIT a party to the suit. The suit is properly constituted as the Union of India has been made a party to the suit - For the reasons given above I hold that interest cannot be awarded to the plaintiffs by this court - In the result, the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 23
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - case relates to the estate duty assessment in respect of the property of Sri Gaindamal who died on 14th October, 1964 - When the deceased gets money in cash which is invested in firm in which he was a partner whether the donor is excluded from any benefit and whether the amount and interest on it passes on the donor's death

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 22
  

  Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that : (a) capital reserve, (b) stocks and stores reserves, (c) bad and doubtful debts reserves, (d) obsolescence reserve, (e) loans and insurance reserves, (f) investment reserve, and (g) forfeited monies reserves, were to be included in the computation of capital according to the provisions in the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ? "

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 21
  

  Kanom Tenancy Act, 1955 - " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the jenmikaram payable by the kanom tenant to the jenmi is compensation for the extinguishment of the entire rights of the jenmi in the land of the kanom holding, as held by the Tribunal ? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the jenmikaram payable by the kanom tenant to the jenmi is income assessable to tax under the Income-tax Act or only a capital receipt ?"

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 20
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - conversion of proprietary business into partnership concern - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the gift is exempt under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 19
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to development rebate on the four new buses put on road after December 31, 1957 - Whether creation of reserve for the purpose of development rebate by debiting profit and loss account can be made at any time

  ---

• 1972 (7) TMI 18
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the value of the properties transferred by the assessees to their wives is includible in the total wealth of the assessee under section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act.
  2. The nature of dower (mehr) under Mohammadan law and its classification as a debt.
  3. Definition and scope of "adequate consideration" under section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act.
  4. Applicability of section 4(1)(a) to the facts of the case.
  5. Interpretation of "debts owed" within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether the value of the properties transferred by the assessees to their wives is includible in the total wealth of the assessee under section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act:
  
  The court examined whether the properties transferred by the assessees to their wives should be included in their total wealth under section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessees argued that the transfer was in partial discharge of a dower debt, which they claimed was a legitimate debt under Mohammadan law. The Wealth-tax Officer, however, did not accept this argument, stating that the enhancement of the dower was voluntary and did not create a legal liability or consideration under section 4 of the Act. The Tribunal later held that the transfer of property in settlement of the dower debt was for adequate consideration and should not be included in the assessees' net wealth. The High Court, however, disagreed with the Tribunal's decision, concluding that the transfers were not for adequate consideration and thus should be included in the assessees' total wealth.
  
  2. The nature of dower (mehr) under Mohammadan law and its classification as a debt:
  
  The court discussed the nature of dower (mehr) under Mohammadan law, distinguishing between prompt and deferred dower. Prompt dower is payable on demand, while deferred dower is payable upon the dissolution of marriage by death or divorce. The court noted that deferred dower is not a debt in praesenti and cannot be demanded or paid until the dissolution of the marriage. The court emphasized that the deferred dower does not become a debt owed by the husband during the subsistence of the marriage.
  
  3. Definition and scope of "adequate consideration" under section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act:
  
  The court examined the meaning of "adequate consideration" as used in section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, noting that the term is not defined in the Act. The court referred to the definition of "consideration" in section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, which involves an act, abstinence, or promise made at the desire of the promisor. The court concluded that "adequate consideration" means valuable consideration measurable in terms of money or money's worth, and not merely good consideration such as natural love and affection. The court emphasized that adequate consideration must be something more than good or valid consideration and must be capable of being compared and measured with money.
  
  4. Applicability of section 4(1)(a) to the facts of the case:
  
  The court analyzed the applicability of section 4(1)(a) to the facts of the case, noting that the transfers of assets were made while the relationship of husband and wife was subsisting and were not made in connection with an agreement to live separately. The court concluded that the transfers must be found to be without adequate consideration to attract the provisions of section 4(1)(a). The court held that the transfers in question were not for adequate consideration as they were made in partial discharge of a deferred dower, which is not a debt in praesenti and cannot be demanded or paid during the subsistence of the marriage.
  
  5. Interpretation of "debts owed" within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act:
  
  The court discussed the meaning of "debts owed" within the context of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, referring to various legal precedents. The court concluded that a debt must be a liability to pay an ascertainable sum of money in praesenti or in futuro. The court held that the deferred dower in this case was not a debt owed on the relevant valuation dates as it was contingent on the dissolution of the marriage. The court emphasized that the liability to pay the dower was contingent on a future event and thus did not qualify as a debt owed under section 2(m).
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the value of the properties transferred by the assessees to their wives should be included in their total wealth under section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. The court emphasized that the transfers were not for adequate consideration and that the deferred dower did not constitute a debt owed during the subsistence of the marriage. The assessees were ordered to pay the costs of the reference.

  ---

1234