|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 80 Records
-
1969 (4) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income from dividends - Tribunal held that as the dividend received by the assessee covered by s. 99(1)(iv) was Rs. 85,201, the relief was not liable to be reduced merely because the "dividend income" after deduction of interest of money borrowed for earning the said dividend would be worked out at a lesser figure - tribunal was righty in holding that assessee was entitled to relief u/s 99(1)(iv) in respect of Rs. 85,201 and not on the said amount reduced by Rs. 10,290 being interest on money borrowed for earning the said dividend
-
1969 (4) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Export - withdrawal of certain rebates - whether examination of the composition of profits of the year from which the dividend has been declared is necessary for the purposes of computing the reduction in rebate
-
1969 (4) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Race club - amount received by a racing club as surcharge for local charities could not be included in assessee's taxable income
-
1969 (4) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Excess values shown in the partition deed - to adjust shares in partition - section 10(2)(vii) not applicable - expenditure incurred by the money-lending firm for dissolution of larger partnership to secure its loans are allowable u/s 10(2)(xv)
-
1969 (4) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Whether the sum said to have been forgone by the assessee as managing agency commission was allowable as a revenue expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
-
1969 (4) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm - refusal of the registration on the ground that the partnership deed was vague - tribunal was right in holding that registration under section 26A could not be granted to the firm
-
1969 (4) TMI 14 - ASSAM AND NAGALAND HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material for the finding of the Board that the ownership of the properties and shares standing in the name of Shri Nandlal Goenka passed on the death of the deceased - Held, no
-
1969 (4) TMI 13 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Duty payable by the petitioner on scrap iron ... ... ... ... ..... too would, be permissible. We do not want to speculate on this aspect of the matter, and supply words which could easily be supplied in order to to arrive at the conclusion at which we have arrived. (Vide also Craies on Statute Law, 146-148, latest edition). For the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that the orders passed by the revenue authorities are not supportable and they are quashed. The stand of the petitioner must be accepted. We may, however, make it clear that the burden will lie on the petitioner in every case to satisfy the department by placing on record reliable material that in fact a certain quantity of scrap iron which would be liable to duty at the rate mentioned in item No. 25, Schedule I, is payable so that the department may make correct calculation in the light of such material. On calculation of the amount of duty payable by the petitioner in the light of this decision, if any amount already realised is found to be in excess, it must be refunded.
-
1969 (4) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bad and doubtful debt - claim for deduction u/s 10(2)(xi) - deduction allowed ... ... ... ... ..... can be drawn. It seems to us that it tends towards certainty of the law and even the convinces (sic) of the revenue as well as of the assessee that there is strict adherence to the statutory provisions. The trading loss occurred in this case when the assessee wrote off the amount claimed as deduction on April 1, 1957. That writing off was irrevocable and binding on both sides. The amount was, therefore, eligible for deduction as a trading loss in the assessment year 1957-58. But, unfortunately, the assessee did not put forward the claim for deduction on the ground that it was a trading loss but took up the position that it was a bad debt, with the result the revenue, having regard to the several subsequent circumstances, considered that it had not become a bad debt in the previous years or even in the year in question. Notwithstanding our sympathies to the assessee, we are, therefore, constrained to answer the question against the assessee with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1969 (4) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeals preferred by the department against the orders of the AAC - maintainability ... ... ... ... ..... oint of its jurisdiction. Since the assessment orders had been set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal was entitled to think that a direction might well be given to the Income-tax Officer to re-do the assessments. What would be the effect of that direction in law, whether it would be one competent for purposes of the second proviso to section 34(3) and would serve to lift the bar of limitation is entirely another matter, which the present reference is not concerned with. It is needless to provide, therefore, that it would be open to the assessee, in the proceedings before the income-tax Officer on the basis of his returns, to raise the question of limitation untramelled in any way by our order in this reference and it should have to be decided on its merits with refereece to the second proviso to section 34(3). Like the first question, we also answer the second question against the assessee. The revenue is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1969 (4) TMI 10 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Application to High Court u/s. 66(2) - not become infructuous ... ... ... ... ..... mitted for the opinion of the court under section 66(2) of the Act. This view finds further support from sub-section (4) of section 66. which provides that If the High Court is not satisfied that the statements in a case referred under this section are sufficient to enable it to determine the question raised thereby, the High Court may refer the case back to the Appellate Tribunal to make such additions thereto or alterations therein as the court may direct in that behalf. The use of the word statements in plural suggests that this sub-section refers to two statements in the same case, one under section 66(1) and another under section 66(2). It follows, therefore, that if the two statements of the case come before the High Court not simultaneously but one after the other, the court will dispose them of separately and the Tribunal, therefore, also will have to pass two separate orders under section 66(5) of the Act. In our opinion, these petitions have not become infructuous.
-
1969 (4) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - shares transferred by the assessee to her minor son - Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of shares transferred by the assessee is not caught by section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the WT Act, and is not therefore liable to be included in her wealth-tax assessments
-
1969 (4) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agreement for relief from or Avoidance of Double Taxation in India and Ceylon - entitlement to double tax relief
-
1969 (4) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking - entitlement to exemption u/s 15C of the IT Act, 1922 ... ... ... ... ..... of the machinery for the undertaking is an old machinery purchased from various other persons. So the first argument on the side of the assessee cannot be accepted. In the present case a substantial part of the machinery of the undertaking has been an old machinery purchased from other persons and the consequence, as already stated, is that it was previously used for their business by those other persons. So the argument on the side of the assessee cannot be accepted that it is an industrial undertaking not formed by the transfer to it of machinery (substantial part of it old) previously used in the business of those from whom the same was purchased. The case falls under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 15C and the exemption as claimed by the assessee under sub-section (1) of that section is not available to it. The answer to the question referred to is thus in the negative. The assessee will bear the costs of the Commissioner of Income-tax. PREM CHAND JAIN.-I agree.
-
1969 (4) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Application for execution - maintainability ... ... ... ... ..... ta, based as it is on the judgment of the learned subordinate judge dated April 16, 1952, in the earlier Misc. Cases under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be entertained for the simple reason that the present appellants who were the judgment-debtors in the said proceedings had succeeded and the learned subordinate judge had found the execution itself to be not maintainable. Therefore, on the facts no finding, however adverse against the present appellants who were the successful parties in that litigation, can operate as res judicata. Reference may be made to the case of Kumar Pasupati Nath Malia v. Sankar Prosad and Midnadur Zamindar Co. v. Naresh. On the conclusions as above this appeal must succeed and we therefore allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the learned subordinate judge and direct that the execution petition be dismissed as not maintainable. And we further direct that the parties would pay their respective costs. Appeal allowed
-
1969 (4) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Firm - renewal of registration ... ... ... ... ..... ances of the case, the grant of registration to the assessee for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 is justified in law ? We are of the view that the Tribunal did the right thing. All the requisites for granting registration having been complied with, the assessee was entitled to renewal of registration for the years in question. The assessee no doubt took up the stand that the profits were divisible between four members and that did not prevail with the revenue for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. But that by itself, as the Tribunal rightly held, would not justify refusal to renew registration. Though the power is vested in the Income-tax Officer, its exercise is not discretionary but where the requisites for registration prescribed by the statute and the rules made thereunder are satisfied, it has to be given as, a matter of right Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. Abdul Rahim and Co. We answer the question against the revenue with costs, counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1969 (4) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessee-firm - entitlement to registration under s. 26A of the IT Act ... ... ... ... ..... alisman to protect its executants. The Supreme Court, in fact, has recognised, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Abdul Rahim and Company, that a partner can serve a partnership in a representative capacity and share the profits with outsiders. Such being the march of law, we are firmly of the view that the Tribunal refused registration of the firm on irrelevant material and ignoring the concrete details available on record. As in this case it is not disputed that a question of law has arisen and as such the question is found merged in the details found on record, we have scrutinised the same to come to the present conclusion. It is not a case in which it could be said that there is some evidence to support the finding of the Tribunal. On the other hand, we are bound to comment that the decision of the Tribunal is based on pure conjectures, suspicions and irrelevant material. We therefore answer the question referred in favour of the assessee with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1969 (4) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - applicability of section 12 of ED Act, 1953 ... ... ... ... ..... h of the first four deeds multiplied by the years of the donor s existence would give the value on which the charge will attach. So far as the provision in the deed in favour of the daughter is concerned, no sum has been fixed as maintenance. It is for the in consultation with that accountable person to fix the quantum in that case which would be taken as having passed on the death of the deceased. We may add that so far as the deed in favour of the wife is concerned, in our opinion, it makes no provision at all for maintenance in the form of any kind of reservation. Learned counsel for the revenue argues that the entire value of the property should be taken as having passed. But it is hardly necessary to say that section 10 does not admit of it. That section is clear that only to the extent of the lion-exclusion of benefit there would be passing. We answer the question in favour of the accountable persons but in the manner indicated above, with costs. Counsel s fee, Rs. 250.
-
1969 (4) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Whether section 9 read with section 2(15), Explanation 2, has been rightly invoked by the revenue for the inclusion of the value of the half share of the father, in view of the proviso to section 27
-
1969 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
High Court apparently assumed certain facts which are not shown to have been determined by the Tribunal and, on the assumption that those facts existed, the High Court has held that the agreement was not one which represented the true bargain between the parties - High Court was not right in answering the question not arising out of order of Tribunal - Assessee's appeal is allowed
|
