Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1996 1996 (4) 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 401 to 410 of 410 Records

• 1996 (4) TMI 11
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Compulsory acquisition under Article 31(2A) of the Constitution.
  2. Acquisition as a sale or transfer under Sections 32 and 41 of the Income-tax Act.
  3. Compensation as a slump transaction under Sections 41(2) and 45 of the Income-tax Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Compulsory Acquisition under Article 31(2A) of the Constitution
  
  The court examined whether the taking over of the bus transport undertaking by the Government of Tamil Nadu amounted to a "compulsory acquisition" as defined in Article 31(2A) of the Constitution, thus attracting the provisions of Sections 41(2) and 45 of the Income-tax Act. The court held that under the Tamil Nadu Fleet Operators Stage Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1971, the assets of the transport division vested with the Government absolutely and free from all encumbrances upon notification. This was deemed a compulsory acquisition within the meaning of "sold" under Sections 32 and 41 and "transfer" under Section 2(47) of the Act. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kavur Bai, which upheld the validity of similar acquisition acts, to conclude that the provisions of Sections 41(2) and 45 of the Income-tax Act were applicable.
  
  Issue 2: Acquisition as a Sale or Transfer under Sections 32 and 41 of the Income-tax Act
  
  The court considered whether the acquisition of stage carriages amounted to the assets being sold or transferred within the meaning of Sections 32 and 41 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal had previously concluded that the compulsory acquisition constituted a sale and transfer. The court agreed, noting that the compensation paid by the Government was attributable to the individual assets acquired. This conclusion was supported by the fact that the compensation was determined based on the market value of the assets as per the Tamil Nadu Fleet Operators Stage Carriages (Acquisition) Act. The court also noted that the assessee had accepted the compensation without resorting to arbitration, indicating that the compensation was indeed for the individual assets.
  
  Issue 3: Compensation as a Slump Transaction under Sections 41(2) and 45 of the Income-tax Act
  
  The court addressed whether the payment of compensation amounted to a slump transaction, which would mean that balancing charges under Section 41(2) and capital gains under Section 45 could not be levied. The court rejected this argument, stating that the compensation received by the assessee was attributable to specific assets. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co., which established that even in a slump sale, if the compensation can be attributed to specific assets, the provisions of Section 41(2) would apply. The court found that the compensation in this case was indeed attributable to the individual assets and thus, the provisions of Sections 41(2) and 45 were applicable.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  - First Question of Law: Answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
  - Second Question of Law: Answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
  - Third Question of Law: Answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
  
  The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the compensation received was attributable to the individual assets, thereby attracting the provisions of Sections 41(2) and 45 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference, with counsel fees fixed at Rs. 500.

  ---

• 1996 (4) TMI 10
  

  Whether the compensation awarded under the head "Fourthly" in sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does, or does not, represent the compensation for the land acquired - HC has held rightly, that the amount awarded under the said head stands on the same footing as the amount awarded under any other head in the said sub-section & that no distinction as between them is permissible. All of them represent the compensation awarded for the land acquired under the Act

  ---

• 1996 (4) TMI 9
  
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals regarding expenses incurred for maintaining a branch in Penang, Malaysia for sales promotion, holding it falls under section 35B of the Income-tax Act. No costs awarded. (1996 (4) TMI 9 - SC)

  ---

• 1996 (4) TMI 7
  

  Father of the assessee made an application for liquidation of the debts - On the death of the father, his estate was taken over by the court of wards which invested in Government securities out of the savings of the estate - the obligation of the son to pay off the debts contracted by his father is limited to the properties inherited by the son from his father- held that a decree obtained by the creditors could not be executed against these Government securities.

  ---

• 1996 (4) TMI 6
  

  Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the interest attributable to the loans borrowed by the assessee for the purpose of construction of theatre should be allowed under the head 'Business' when the theatre was sold & business of exhibition of cinematographic films stopped - Whether decision of Tribunal that the business carried on by the assessee as jewellers and in the running of the cinema theatre, restaurant, etc., are composite is based on valid materials

  ---

• 1996 (4) TMI 5
  

  Held in case of a return filed under sub-section (4) of section 139, a revised return contemplated by sub-section (5) of section 139 cannot be filed - held that the orders of assessment made in respect of the said two assessment years are barred and are not saved by s. 153(1)(b) - Once we hold that no revised returns could be filed by the assessee for the said two assessment years, the assessments made beyond the prescribed period of 4 years (but within 5 years) are not saved by s. 153(1)(c)

  ---

• 1996 (4) TMI 4
  

  Compensation received from bank on account of damages of stock in trade - whether Tribunal was right in law in adding Rs. 1,13,092 to the total income of the assessee in the accounting year ending March 31, 1961 - held that impugned compensation is assessable as trading receipt

  ---

• 1996 (4) TMI 3
  

  Jurisdiction to levy Penalty - deletion of sub-section (2) of section 274 by the taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976. - proceedings pending before Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on March 31, 1976 - Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to whom the case was referred prior to April 1, 1971, had jurisdiction to impose penalty

  ---

• 1996 (4) TMI 2
  

  Whether the tax levied under the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964, is "a tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of or otherwise on the basis of any such profits or gains", as contemplated by the said sub-clause - Held that the surtax levied falls within the mischief of section 40(a) (ii) & cannot be allowed as a deduction while computing the business income of the assessee under the provisions of the Income-tax Act

  ---

• 1996 (4) TMI 1
  

  Whether the various activities being carried on by the assessee constitute one single integrated activity or do they represent distinct businesses - question of this nature is a question of fact - Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that the managing agency commission had to be allocated in accordance with the directions given by the Appellate Tribunal in para. 39 of its order, by allocating the same to the various sources of income viz., tea, coffee, coffee curing works and so on

  ---

1 ....1718192021