Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1969 1969 (12) 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 61 to 78 of 78 Records

• 1969 (12) TMI 18
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - In allowing deductions from gross annual rental to arrive at the figure of net annual rental in the deductions allowed by the Board of Revenue deduction for repairs is to be allowed at the rate of 1/6th of the rent and not at the rate of 1/12th - there is no provision in the Estate Duty which says that report of valuation of property made by a valuer appointed under s. 4(3) is binding on the authorities under the Act.

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 17
  

  Contention that as her late husband was an assessee under the IT Act of 1918 and she had succeeded to the business and the vocation carried on by him, was entitled to the relief under s. 25(4) - Whether relief u/s 25(4) is restricted only to the profits and gains assessable u/s 10 - Held, no

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 16
  

  Assessee's two minor sons had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The minors had deposited some sums which were treated by the firm as loans - whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest paid on the additional amounts contributed by the minors is properly includible in the income of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(ii) - Held, no

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 15
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - scope of section 7(1) - Whether one-fourth share of the deceased in the joint family properties, to which she was entitled under section 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, was correctly included in her estate as property deemed to pass on her death under section 7 - Held, no

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 14
  

  Sum of Rs. 1,67,345 represents the payment to the assessee in full and final settlement of his claim for damages for wrongful termination of his services - it could not be regarded partly as derived from employment - therefore, held that sum is covered by the 2nd Explanation to section 7(1) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by s. 5 of the Finance Act, 1955.

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 13
  

  Whether the suit was liable to be dismissed in view of the admitted non-compliance with the provision of s. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code - section 80 was attracted to this case and that the institution of the suit was invalid ab initio, because of non-service of notice u/s 80 - revenue's appeal allowed

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 12
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - Whether in the process of blending by a coparcener of his separate property with the coparcenary property there is a transfer - Sub-cl. (d) of s. 2(xxiv) is wholly inapplicable to a case of blending - When a Hindu father impresses the separate property with the character of joint family property, there is no gift within the meaning of s. 2(xii) of the GT Act

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 11
  
  Issues:
  1. Entitlement to tax clearance certificate under section 230(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Liability of legal representative for tax assessed on a dissolved firm.
  3. Interpretation of section 44 of the Income-tax Act prior to its amendment in 1958.
  4. Application of the decision in Manindra Lal Goswami v. Income-tax Officer to the case at hand.
  5. Validity of the refusal to grant the tax clearance certificate to the petitioner.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioner, a widow seeking a tax clearance certificate to move to New Zealand, was denied by the Income-tax Officer due to alleged tax liability of Rs. 48,715 from her deceased husband's partnership in the dissolved firm "Inka Corporation." The respondent contended that as the heir, the petitioner is liable for the tax. However, the petitioner argued that the firm dissolved in 1953, and under section 44 of the Act pre-amendment, partners should be assessed jointly or severally. The court noted that the assessment orders were served only on one partner, not the petitioner's husband, making him not liable. The court cited Manindra Lal Goswami case stating that after firm discontinuance, partners are individually liable. The court agreed that partners should be assessed post-dissolution, not the firm, and as no tax liability was fixed on the petitioner's husband, the petitioner is not liable either. Hence, the refusal to grant the tax clearance certificate was deemed unjustified.
  
  The court emphasized that under section 29 of the Act, partners of a dissolved firm are liable for tax dues, and in this case, the petitioner's husband was not assessed or served a notice of demand. Consequently, the petitioner, as the heir, is not responsible for the tax assessed on the dissolved firm. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to issue the tax clearance certificate promptly, considering the petitioner's impending migration deadline. The court highlighted that the petitioner must receive the certificate within three weeks and made no order as to costs. The judgment clarified the legal position regarding tax liability in cases of dissolved firms and upheld the petitioner's right to the tax clearance certificate for her relocation purposes.
  
  In conclusion, the court's decision favored the petitioner, ruling that she was not liable for the tax assessed on the dissolved firm "Inka Corporation." The judgment highlighted the correct interpretation of the law pre-amendment and post-dissolution of a firm, emphasizing the individual liability of partners. The court's directive for the immediate issuance of the tax clearance certificate underscored the urgency of the petitioner's situation, ensuring her timely relocation plans to New Zealand.

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 10
  

  Irrecoverable rent - claim for deduction under item No. 38 of the Govt. Notification No. 878-F dated March 21, 1922, as regards unrealised rent in previous years - assessee is entitled for each of the years under consideration to the exclusion from the income under the head 'Property' of any amount equal to the irrecoverable rent

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 9
  
  Issues:
  1. Valuation of property leased to Jayanthilal Thakoor.
  2. Valuation of property leased to Indian Bank.
  3. Assessment of the assessee's status as an 'individual' for the year 1963-64.
  
  Valuation of Property Leased to Jayanthilal Thakoor:
  The case involved the valuation of a property leased to Jayanthilal Thakoor, specifically focusing on the rights of the lessor in the superstructure and land. The lease agreement allowed the lessee to construct a theatre on the site, known as the "Alankar Theatre." The court analyzed the valuation of the building and land, considering the lease terms and the rights of the lessor. The Tribunal valued the lessor's right to the building at Rs. 1,09,905, but the court corrected this valuation by accounting for depreciation and future possession rights. Ultimately, the court determined the total value of the property leased to Jayanthilal Thakoor at Rs. 1,48,441, with the assessee's interest valued at Rs. 74,219. The court held in favor of the assessee regarding the valuation methodology.
  
  Valuation of Property Leased to Indian Bank:
  The second issue addressed the valuation of a property leased to the Indian Bank, focusing on the building and land separately. The lease agreement entitled the assessee to a share of the rent paid by the bank. The court emphasized the importance of determining the market value of the property based on rental income and market trends. The Wealth-tax Officer's valuation method, which included future rent benefits, was deemed incorrect. The court highlighted the capitalization of annual rental value as the appropriate valuation method, concluding the market value of the property at Rs. 2,00,000, with the assessee's share valued at Rs. 1,00,000. Question No. 2 was answered in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the correct valuation approach.
  
  Assessment of Assessee's Status:
  Regarding the assessment of the assessee's status as an 'individual' for the year 1963-64, the court referred to a previous decision that guided the outcome of this question in favor of the revenue. As a result, only questions related to property valuation were extensively discussed and decided in favor of the assessee. The court directed the Wealth-tax Officer to revalue the properties based on the corrected methodology provided in the judgment. Ultimately, questions 1 and 2 were answered in favor of the assessee, while question 3 was answered in favor of the revenue. The assessee was awarded costs and advocate's fee of Rs. 250.
  
  ---

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 8
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the proceeds of sale of rosewood trees in the hands of the assessee constitute agricultural income liable to tax under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957.
  2. Whether the said amount is a capital receipt not liable to income-tax.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Agricultural Income
  The primary issue is whether the proceeds from the sale of rosewood trees can be classified as agricultural income under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. The term "agricultural income" is defined in section 2(1)(a) of the Act, which includes any income derived from land used for growing commercial crops and involves agricultural activities.
  
  The court noted that the assessee's land comprised both cultivated areas and jungle areas. The receipts in question were primarily derived from the sale of rosewood trees from the jungle area, which was not under cultivation during the relevant accounting years. The court emphasized that for income to be considered agricultural, the land must be used for agricultural purposes during the accounting year.
  
  The court found that the Commissioner did not address whether the land from which the rosewood was extracted was actually used for agricultural purposes in the relevant years. Consequently, the court concluded that the proceeds from the sale of rosewood trees from non-cultivated land could not be regarded as agricultural income, as the primary condition of the land being used for agricultural purposes was not satisfied.
  
  Issue 2: Capital Receipt
  The second issue was whether the proceeds from the sale of rosewood trees constituted capital receipts, which are not liable to income-tax. The court examined whether the rosewood trees were of spontaneous growth or planted by human agency. The Commissioner had placed the burden of proof on the assessee to demonstrate that the trees were of spontaneous growth.
  
  The court reviewed evidence, including affidavits from experts, which indicated that the rosewood trees were over 150 years old and not planted in regular rows, suggesting they were of spontaneous growth. The court also referenced authoritative texts, which confirmed that rosewood trees are native to India and grow naturally in the Western Ghats, including Coorg.
  
  Given this evidence, the court concluded that the rosewood trees were not planted by human agency but were of spontaneous growth. Therefore, the proceeds from their sale could not be considered agricultural income as defined under the Act.
  
  Further, the court considered whether the receipts from the sale of rosewood trees were capital in nature. It noted that shade trees in coffee plantations are essential for the protection and growth of coffee bushes and are considered part of the fixed assets of the planter. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in State of Kerala v. Karimthruvi Tea Estate Ltd., which held that the sale proceeds of shade trees in tea estates were capital receipts.
  
  Applying this principle, the court held that the rosewood trees, maintained as shade trees, were part of the capital assets of the assessee. Therefore, the proceeds from their sale were capital receipts and not taxable as income.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court allowed the revision petitions, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax. The court concluded that the proceeds from the sale of rosewood trees were not agricultural income and were capital receipts, thus not liable to income-tax. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the petitioner.

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 7
  

  High Court has not delivered any judgment giving reasons for rejecting the application under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, after the rule was issued. As we have held in this court that once a rule is issued some reasons must be given for deciding the reference against the party applying, and since no reasons have been given, the order of the High Court is set aside and the cases are remanded to the High Court to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with law

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 6
  

  For the purpose of bringing to tax the dividend income of the assessee and having regard to the provisions of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, the dividend income should be subject to tax at the concessional rates mentioned in the Schedule to the `Order` as held by the High Court - respondent was entitled to choose the financial year as the previous year in relation to the commission income - view taken by the High Court is correct - Revenue's appeal dismissed

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 5
  

  Income derived by the assessee from the business carried on by it in territories outside the "taxable territories" were not brought to tax under the Act - expression "that where in respect of a particular source of income, profits and gains" in the proviso to s. 2(11)(i)(a) means the income from a particular source which has been brought to tax under the Act - Revenue's appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 4
  

  Business Expenditure - Where an amount paid to an employee pursuant to an agreement is excessive because of ``extra-commercial considerations``, the taxing authority has jurisdiction to disallow a part of the amount as expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business - Assessee's appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 3
  

  Improper service of notice - Where the party feeling aggrieved by an order of an authority under the IT Act has an adequate alternative remedy which he may resort to against the improper action of the authority and he does not avail himself of that remedy the High Court will require a strong case to be made out for entertaining a petition for a writ - Assessee's appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 2
  

  Best Judgment Assessment - Asst. Collector of Agrl. IT enhanced the assessment made by the Agricultural ITO - Tribunal was clearly in error in confirming the decision of the Assistant Collector - High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Tribunal - Revenue's appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 1969 (12) TMI 1
  

  Estate Duty - Once the income was received by the joint family, the amount lost its character of income; it became merged in the joint family assets and became the capital of the family. The share received by the assessee was therefore a share in the capital of the family. The share in the joint family property which included interest on the estate duty was not of the nature of revenue and not taxable - Revenue's appeal is dismissed

  ---

1234