Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (1) 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 81 to 85 of 85 Records

• 1972 (1) TMI 6
  

  Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that part out of the interest paid by the assessee-company on capital borrowed by it, as is attributable to advances given by it to its two subsidiaries free of interest, is admissible as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) - deduction not admissible

  ---

• 1972 (1) TMI 5
  

  Revenue Expenditure - partnership - goodwill was an asset of an enduring nature- it is a very ingenious attempt to avoid payment of tax by making it appear somehow that the payment of purchase money may be treated as payment of a royalty - The payments were in the nature of royalty and had to be treated as admissible deductions - Assessee's appeal allowed

  ---

• 1972 (1) TMI 4
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether a Jain undivided family is included in the expression "Hindu undivided family" within section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
  2. Whether the levy of wealth-tax on Hindu undivided family or joint family governed under Mitakshara school of Hindu law was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and ultra vires the Constitution of India.
  3. Whether the Wealth-tax Act, in so far as it purports to levy wealth-tax on Hindu undivided families, is void and inoperative as it offends article 14 of the Constitution of India.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Inclusion of Jain Undivided Family within "Hindu Undivided Family" under Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:
  The primary issue was whether a Jain undivided family falls within the definition of "Hindu undivided family" as per Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Wealth-tax Officer assessed the family assets of the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Appellate Tribunal, however, held that Jains were not Hindus and thus the expression "Hindu undivided family" did not cover a Jain family. The High Court supported this view, stating that Jains, not being Hindus in the generally accepted sense, could not form a Hindu undivided family. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating that the term "Hindu undivided family" in the Wealth-tax Act includes Jain families. The Court noted that historically, Jains have been governed by Hindu law in the absence of specific customs or usages to the contrary. The legislative practice has been to treat Jains as included in the term "Hindu" in various statutory enactments. Therefore, the expression "Hindu undivided family" includes Jain undivided families.
  
  2. Legislative Competence and Ultra Vires Nature of Wealth-tax on Hindu Undivided Families:
  The second issue was whether the imposition of wealth-tax on Hindu undivided families was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and ultra vires the Constitution of India. This issue was not pressed before the High Court, presumably due to the precedent set in Banarsi Dass v. Wealth-tax Officer, Special Circle, Meerut, which upheld the legislative competence of Parliament to levy such a tax.
  
  3. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
  The third issue was whether the Wealth-tax Act, in so far as it levies wealth-tax on Hindu undivided families, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. Similar to the second issue, this contention was not pursued before the High Court, likely due to the established legal position that the classification of Hindu undivided families for tax purposes does not offend Article 14.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the expression "Hindu undivided family" in the Wealth-tax Act includes Jain undivided families. The Court emphasized that legislative and judicial practices have consistently treated Jains as part of the broader Hindu category for legal purposes, including taxation. Consequently, the assessment made on the Jain family as a Hindu undivided family was upheld. The other issues regarding legislative competence and violation of Article 14 were not addressed, as they were not pressed before the High Court. The appeal by certificate (C.A No. 1686/68) was dismissed due to lack of reasons.

  ---

• 1972 (1) TMI 3
  

  Capital Gains Tax - sale of properties at less than market value - Issue if the object of transfer was to avoid or reduce liability to tax does not involve application of any legal principles to the facts established by the evidence - hence it is not a question of law - Appeal of assessee s allowed - order of the High Court is hereby set aside

  ---

• 1972 (1) TMI 2
  

  Assessee takes property on lease, develops the same and submits the property - whether the income from subletting is business income or from other sources - answer to the question referred by the Tribunal is that the income in question was assessable under section 10 and not under section 12

  ---

12345