Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1968 1968 (9) 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 89 of 89 Records

• 1968 (9) TMI 9
  

  Assess took salt pans on lease from the Government for 25 years, which was liable to be determined by notice on either side at the close of the sale/manufacturing season - assessee's leasehold interest was not an `asset' under cl. (e)(v) as it stood prior to its amendment by the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Act, 1964 - Revenue appeal dismissed

  ---

• 1968 (9) TMI 8
  

  Case of the appellant was that he had ceased to be a partner at the time of the assessment and was not liable to pay the income-tax assessed upon the partnership firm. It was also stated that no notice of the assessment proceedings was given to that appellant, nor was any notice of demand issued under s. 29 - held that tax can be recovered from partner without serving notice of demand on him

  ---

• 1968 (9) TMI 7
  

  Question involved in this case was not a question of pure fact but was a mixed question of fact and law. The questions actually framed by Supreme Court on the last occasion were not appropriate and do not reflect the real controversy between the parties - High Court decision is set aside on the ground that the enquiry made by the High Court was, not competent on the questions as framed at present - no opinion on the merits - Tribunal will make the fresh reference

  ---

• 1968 (9) TMI 6
  

  Assessee carried on both speculative as well as non-speculative business - sum of Rs. 78,749, which was deemed to be the profits and gains of business under s. 10(2A) of the IT Act, can be said to be arising from speculative business - Assessee's appeal allowed

  ---

• 1968 (9) TMI 5
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to stay recovery of penalties during the pendency of an appeal.
  2. Relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and their interpretation.
  3. Judicial precedents and principles regarding incidental and ancillary powers of appellate bodies.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to Stay Recovery of Penalties:
  The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has the authority to stay the recovery of penalties imposed on an assessee during the pendency of an appeal. The Tribunal initially declined to grant a stay, asserting it lacked such power. However, the High Court held that the Tribunal possessed this power as it was incidental and ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, emphasizing that the Tribunal's wide powers under section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act inherently include the authority to stay recovery proceedings to ensure the effectiveness of its appellate jurisdiction.
  
  2. Relevant Provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The judgment delves into several sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to interpret the Tribunal's powers:
  - Section 156: Mandates the Income-tax Officer to serve a notice of demand when any tax, interest, penalty, or other sum is payable.
  - Section 220(1): Specifies the payment timeline for amounts in the notice of demand and the consequences of default.
  - Section 220(6): Grants the Income-tax Officer discretion to treat the assessee as not in default during the pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
  - Section 254(1): Empowers the Tribunal to pass such orders on appeals as it thinks fit after hearing both parties.
  - Section 255(5) and (6): Allows the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure and grants it powers similar to those of income-tax authorities under section 131.
  
  The Supreme Court noted the absence of explicit provisions in the Act granting the Tribunal the power to stay recovery but emphasized that the wide appellate powers under section 254(1) implicitly include such authority.
  
  3. Judicial Precedents and Principles:
  The judgment references various judicial principles and precedents to support the Tribunal's implied powers:
  - Sutherland's Statutory Construction: Asserts that a statutory grant of power includes the authority to use all reasonable means to make it effective.
  - Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes: States that granting jurisdiction implies the power to do all acts necessary for its execution.
  - Relevant Case Law: The judgment cites cases under the Motor Vehicles Act and other statutes where appellate bodies were held to have incidental powers to grant stays or remands, even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions.
  
  The Supreme Court also referred to the principle that appellate bodies must have the power to stay proceedings to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory. It highlighted that the Tribunal's power to stay recovery would not be exercised routinely but only in deserving cases where continuing recovery proceedings would frustrate the appeal's purpose.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court concluded that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to stay recovery proceedings as an incidental or ancillary aspect of its appellate jurisdiction under section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This authority ensures that the Tribunal's appellate powers are effective and that the purpose of the appeal is not defeated. The appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.

  ---

• 1968 (9) TMI 4
  

  Whether the notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called the " new Act ", bearing No. 770-d/60-61, 61-62, 62-63 and 63-64 issued by the III Income-tax Officer to M/s. Rajarajeswari Motor Service, Mangalore, produced as exhibit VIII with the writ petition was invalid and inoperative in respect of the following items of tax and penalty included therein?

  Held that:- The Income-tax Officer had authority to issue the notices under section 156 and section 226(3) of the new Act with respect to the liability of the respondent under the old Act. The High Court was, therefore, in error in holding that the impugned notice was inoperative in regard to the amount of ₹ 485.55 for the assessment year 1961-62.

  There is the additional circumstance that the assessments of tax and penalty have been made against the respondent and demand notices have also been issued under section 156 of the new Act. It is, therefore, not possible to argue that the amount of tax and penalty for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 were not " due by the assessee " on April 23, 1965, when the notice under section 226(3) of the new Act was issued. We are accordingly of the opinion that Mr. Srinivasan is unable to make good his argument on this aspect of the case. It follows, therefore, that the impugned notice dated April 23, 1965, was validly issued as regards items 4 and 5, viz., penalty for the assessment year 1962-63, i.e., ₹ 1,890, and tax for the assessment year 1963-64, i.e., ₹ 64,307.90.

  In the absence of specific particulars by the respondent in his writ petition, it is not open to the High Court to go into the question whether the Income-tax Officer has arbitrarily exercised his discretion. In the result we hold that the respondent is unable to substantiate his case that the impugned notice is in any way defective with regard to item No. 1 i.e., tax for the assessment year 1960-61 amounting to ₹ 7,056.15.

  ---

• 1968 (9) TMI 3
  

  Provisional assessment of the tax u/s 141 - against the income returned by the company AO allowed deduction as loss carried forward from the earlier years, and made a demand as tax provisionally due - penalty for default in compliance with the demand - action of AO is not justified - Assessee's appeal allowed

  ---

• 1968 (9) TMI 2
  

  Notices of demand - legality - notice shall have to be given by the ITO for each assessment year to appoint a person as agent. It follows, therefore, that the respondent could not be treated as an agent of the two German firms for the asst. yr. 1962-63 and advance tax could not be demanded under s. 18A of the Act for that assessment year treating the respondent as such statutory agent - notices were illegal - Revenue's appeal dismissed

  ---

• 1968 (9) TMI 1
  

  Assessee is a firm carrying on business in Bangalore in the Mysore State - appointed as the sole selling agent for Ceylon - income of the assessee did not arise in Bangalore (Mysore State) in respect of sales effected to the Burma Teak Trading Co. Ltd., Colombo - assessee was entitled to the concession under States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950. in respect of the profits that could be attributed towards business operations conducted in Bangalore and Ceylon - Revenue's appeal dismissed

  ---

12345