Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (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 67 of 67 Records

• 1972 (12) TMI 7
  

  In these two writ petitions the constitutional validity of section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is challenged - Whether the provisions of Income-tax Act provided for levy of penalty for non-payment of self assessment tax violate provisions of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution

  ---

• 1972 (12) TMI 6
  

  Reassessment proceedings - Surrender by the assessee of some debts in reassessment proceedings - whether such surrender is enough to initiate penalty proceedings - held that there may be hundred reasons for the assessee to surrender the amount irrespective of the fact whether it was his income or not and it was incumbent for the Income-tax Officer to find on evidence that the amount surrendered represented the income of the assessee. As a result of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the order imposing penalty was not justified

  ---

• 1972 (12) TMI 5
  

  Whether Tribunal, having held that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade, is correct in law in holding that the profits made by the assessee by the sale of a part of the land is not ascertainable on the date of the sale - question of law set out in the application of the department did arise for consideration of the High Court and the High Court should have directed the Tribunal to submit that question for its opinion

  ---

• 1972 (12) TMI 4
  

  Contention that the finding of the Tribunal in this case that the finding given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at the earlier stage is a finding necessary for the disposal of the case, is a finding of fact and, therefore, the HC could not have interfered with that finding - no such contention was taken up before the HC or in the memorandum of appeal - conclusion of the Tribunal as to the scope of the Appellate Asst. Commissioner's finding is not a finding of fact but one of law

  ---

• 1972 (12) TMI 3
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act regarding the division of profits for renewal of registration certificate.
  
  Analysis:
  The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the assessee regarding the rejection of their application for renewal of registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1958-59. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal all rejected the application, stating that the previous year's income had not been divided among the partners as claimed by the assessee. The High Court upheld the lower authorities' decision. The main issue was whether the assessee was required to divide the profits of the previous year before applying for renewal of the registration certificate. Section 26A and relevant rules (2, 3, 6) were examined to determine the legal requirements for registration renewal applications. The court concluded that for renewal applications, it is necessary for the assessee to have divided the previous year's profits based on the provisions of section 26A and related rules.
  
  The court emphasized that the plain language of the provisions mandates the division of profits for renewal applications, despite any perceived hardship to the assessee. The court referred to previous decisions by the Madras High Court and the Allahabad High Court supporting the mandatory nature of the division of profits for registration renewal. Additionally, the court cited a previous ruling that paragraph 3 of rule 6 is obligatory. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decision and imposing costs on the assessee. The judgment highlights the importance of complying with the statutory requirements for renewal applications under section 26A and related rules to maintain registration status.
  
  In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the legal obligation of the assessee to divide the profits of the previous year before applying for renewal of the registration certificate under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act. The court underscored the mandatory nature of this requirement based on a thorough analysis of the relevant provisions and previous judicial interpretations. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions in tax matters to avoid adverse consequences.

  ---

• 1972 (12) TMI 2
  

  Reopening of assessment - notice u/s 34(1) - validity - there was no any relevant material before the Income-tax Officer before he issued the notices under section 34(1)(a) to have reason to believe that as a result of the assessee's failure to state in its return truly and fully any fact, any income had escaped assessment

  ---

• 1972 (12) TMI 1
  

  Whether the tax paid by the assessee-company on the tea-garden lands under the U.P.LargeLand Holdings Tax Act, 1957 (U.P. Act XXXI of 1957), is liable to be deducted u/s 10(2)(xv) - question referred to the HC is answered in favour of the assessees. In other words, the answer to the question is that the tax paid under the U.P.LargeLand Holdings Tax Act, 1957, is an admissible deduction from the taxable income of the assesse-companies

  ---

1234