Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1964 1964 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 74 of 74 Records

• 1964 (9) TMI 35 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Director number of, Directors vacation of office by, Oppression and Mismanagement – Right to apply under section 397 and 398, Winding up – Powers of tribunal on hearing petition

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Accounts – Annual accounts and balance sheet

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... on, really relate to the date of the subsequent meeting at which the account should be laid. If the intention of the Legislature was not to confer power on the Registrar to extend the period of eighteen months, the language of the proviso would have been specific that the Registrar then could only extend the periods of nine months or twelve months and not the period of eighteen months. Not only is any such language not present on the other hand a general expression like the period has been used which certainly would cover every one of the periods mentioned in the sub-section, including the period of eighteen months. We agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Judge that the Registrar had the power to extend the period of eighteen months. It may be remarked that if the Registrar had the power to extend the period, it was not denied that the circumstances in the present case amply justified the exercise of that power. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether four-fifths of the sum of ₹ 1,21,245 written off in the books of the assessee as depreciation for the calendar year 1953 is allowable as a deduction in the assessment completed under section 10(7) and the rules contained in the Schedule of the Income-tax Act 1922?

  Held that:- Rule 3(b) does not empower the Income-tax Officer to adjust the accounts on the basis of a revaluation made by him or to correct the discrepancy between what is entered in the accounts and what is fact. We accept the appeal and answer the question in the affirmative. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether loss of cash by dacoity is an admissible deduction under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in computing the assessee's income in a banking business?

  Held that:- In the present case the respondent was carrying on the business of banking. It is an integral part of the process of banking that sufficient moneys should be kept in the bank duly guarded to meet the demands of the constituents. The retention of the money in the bank is a part of the operation of banking. The retention of money in the bank premises carries with it the ordinary risk of its being subject of embezzlement, theft, dacoity or destruction by fire and such other things. Such risk of loss is incidental to the carrying on of the operations of the business of banking. In this view, we are clearly of the opinion that the loss incurred by dacoity in the present case is incidental to the carrying on of the business of banking. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the initiation of action under section 34 for the purpose of bringing to tax the net dividend income of ₹ 579 (suitably grossed) was valid ?

  Whether the said ' P. portion of the dividend income ' forms part of the assessee's total income as that term is defined in section 2(15) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?

  Whether, having regard to the provisions of the Indo-Pakistan Agreement, the assessee is entitled to any ' relief ' on the said ' P. portion of the dividend income' ?

  Whether the other moiety of the dividend of ₹ 1,71,992 declared by the company on October 14, 1952, is properly includible in the total income of the assessee of the previous year S. Y. 2008 for the assessment year 1953-54 ?

  Held that:- It is not necessary to discuss the first question, which raises the point of the validity of proceedings under section 34 of the Act, because it is common ground that it has become academic. The High Court had answered the supplementary question in favour of the assessee " A "

  For second question Mr. Viswanatha Sastri rightly concedes that the Pakistan portion of the dividend forms part of the assessee's total income, as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. The High Court was right in answering this question against the assessee " A ".

  For question three it is common ground that no certificate of assessment in the other Dominion has been produced before the Income-tax Officer. We agree with the High Court that the answer to this question is in the affirmative.

  For question four it will be noticed that the dividend due to the assessee has not been credited to any separate account of the assessee, so that he could, if he wished, draw it. Before the High Court it was never suggested that the dividend was credited or distributed. Accordingly we hold that the Pakistan portion of the dividend has not been credited or paid within the meaning of section 16(2) of the Income-tax Act. The answer to the question is, therefore, in the negative. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Scope of the retrospective operation of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1956 (U.P. Act No. XIV of 1956) questioned

  Held that:- Here we are dealing with an Act whose constitutionality is not questioned. It has expressly conferred power on the appropriate authority to review its previous order if an application was filed within the time prescribed. When once that power of review was exercised, the proceedings were re-opened. In this view, no question of the application of an amending Act to a barred claim would arise. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the income, profits and gains cannot properly be deduced from the method of accounting employed by the appellant is based on any material?

  Held that:- The first reason is that the appellant was doing business in the main on wholesaler basis and there should have been no difficulty in tallying quantities in respect of major items of trading account. This certainly is a relevant consideration. In the absence of such a tally, the next reason given is that the fall in the margin is all the more difficult to explain in view of the fact that the appellant also had a quota of imports worth about ₹ 8,00,000 which would have given them a handsome margin of profit. This again is a relevant fact and it is well-known that imported goods fetch a very handsome margin of profit. Accordingly, we hold that there is material in support of the impugned finding of the Appellate Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the High Court was right in holding that the respondent should be assessed on his share of the income and not on the income of the four brothers as "association of individuals?

  Whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction under section 6(e) of the Act in respect of the expenditure incurred by him for the maintenance of the palace and other buildings of the estate?

  Held that:- In the present case the four nephews of Raja Khaja Pershad succeeded to the estate as co-sharers and each one of them was entitled to 1/4 share of the income from the estate. They did not form a unit for the promotion of any joint enterprise to earn income, profits or gains. The collection of the entire income from the estate by one of the sharers or even by a common employee will not make that income an income from a joint venture. Each of the sharers gets his income as an individual and not as an association of individuals. In this view, the High Court was right in answering the first question in favour of the respondent.

  Whether section 6(e) of the Act applies or section 14(5)(a) of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act, 1357F., applies, the respondent would be entitled to a deduction from his income of the expenditure incurred by him for the maintenance of the palace and other buildings of the estate. The answer given by the High Court to the second question is also correct. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 6 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the notice issued under s. 22(2) of the old Act can be deemed to be a notice under s. 271 of the new Act - held that notice issued under the provisions of the old Act can legitimately be considered as good as a notice issued under the new Act for purposes of invoking ss. 271 and 274 of the new Act.

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 5 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
  

  Reassessment notice - Whether the notice under s. 34 should have been served on all the four legal heirs

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal against the decree of the subordinate judge - whether the deed of gift, exhibit A-9, executed by the second respondent in favour of the appellants, his children by the second wife, is one intended to defeat and delay creditors and as such voidable at the instance of his creditors - execution of the gift deed was part of the arrangement conceived by the second respondent to facilitate his migration to Pakistan - appeal allowed

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Beneficiaries under different settlements by same settlors - held that beneficiaries are not assessable as association of individuals

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 2 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Proceedings taken under the provisions of section 226 - relief claimed is for a declaration that the proceedings for recovery of tax are illegal and for the quashing of the certificate of recovery and the warrant of attachment - writ petition is dismissed

  ---

• 1964 (9) TMI 1 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Notices under sections 147(1) and 142 - limitation - attempt to issue a notice under section 147(1) of the Act of 1961, after the lapse of four years, cannot succeed as the notices issued are clearly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the condition precedent for the issue of such a notice is not satisfied

  ---

1234