Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (1) 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 41 to 60 of 72 Records

• 1967 (1) TMI 32 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Service of Notice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... service first of all, there should be an order of the authority concerned (here the Income-tax Officer) directing the service of notice under rule 20, and then only the notice may be served by affixture both at the place of residence of the assessee and at a conspicuous part of the office of the Income-tax Officer. The assessee had at no stage urged that there was an order of the Income-tax Officer to effect service on him under Order 5, rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure nor did he make any attempt to elicit the necessary evidence by cross-examining the process-server or any other competent witness. Hence, Mr. Tarkeshwar Prasad s reliance on rule 20 of Order 5 is futile. For these reasons the questions are answered as follows Question No. 1 This is answered in the affirmative. The notice was properly served on the assessee on the 29th March, 1958. Question No. 2 This is answered in the negative. The assessee must pay costs of Rs. 200 to the respondents. U. N. SINHA.-I agree.

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 31 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee a company, fixed remuneration of two directors, who were also share holders of the company by passing resolution - in view of the provisions of s. 10(4A) the remuneration allowed by the Tribunal to directors is not an allowable business expenditure u/s 10(2)(xv)

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 30 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Mysore Income Tax Act - Assets distributed on partition of HUF. Three coparceners and widow daughter of karta firmed a partnership and carry on the same business. The assessee (undivided family) claimed exemption u/s 25(3) of the Act contending there is a discontinuance of the business originally carried on by the undivided family - assessee is entitled to exemption

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Statutory allowance - foreign income - third proviso to s. 4(1) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee received Rs. 20,000 as arbitration fee - sum received was a casual and non-recurring item of income which cannot be related to the exercise of any profession, vocation or occupation by the assessee- sum of Rs. 20,000 received by the assessee as remuneration was not revenue income

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessee is entitled to the allowance of the entire expenses incurred u/s 10, on foot that no part of the overhead expenses and interest on borrowed capital is attributable to Govt. securities under the Explanation to section 8 - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Reassessment Of Firm - whether the share income from a firm could be assessed in the partner`s hands prior to the completion of the firm`s assessment - held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Remuneration paid to the directors - in fact it was the HUF and not the company, which was in existence. Any expenses incurred over the members of the HUF could not be added to the expenditure made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the company - hence it is not a permissible deduction u/s 10(2)(xv)

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 24 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. 7,89,611 shown in the balance-sheet as asset and said to have been paid as bonus to the employees for the year 1952-53 was a permissible deduction under the Wealth-tax Act - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  IT Act 1961 - IT Act 1922 - petitioner filed a return of his income in consequence of a notice under s. 22(2) of the IT Act, 1922 - ITO issued a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1961-62 - held that notice u/s 148 and entire proceedings taken by ITO consequent to that notice were without jurisdiction

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Application For Rectification - Share Income - whether, Commissioner rightly declined to interfere with order of Income-tax Officer

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 21 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Capital recipt - contract cannot possibly be treated as a trading contract entered into in the ordinary course of business and must be taken to be a source which was certainly of an enduring value, which yielded income to the assessee - compensation in respect thereof must be treated as capital receipt

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  On the basis of High Court`s order the assessment of assessee were modified and refund was given - assessee claimed interest on the entire refund amount - he was granted interest on refund for the period which was subject matter of reference before the High Court - against this the assessee filed a writ petition - Petition dismissed

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee received payment of Rs. 32,218 in the relevant previous year on account of difference in rates in respect of goods supplied during the war years - Where a receipt is correlated to and arises out of commercial transactions between the parties, the receipt related back to the year of account when the transaction took place, irrespective of the year when the money was received

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Development rebate - In a hiring out business, the installation of a plant or machinery can only be by placing it in position for service or sue - the moment the assessee placed the kolhus in his show room and actually hired them out, the statutory requirement for claiming development rebate would be satisfied

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Foreign income - there is no prohibition or restriction in force throughout the period subsequent to the assessment years - there is no proof that the assessee has utilised his share of income for the two years or could have utilised the same for any expenditure actually incurred in Ceylon - there is no constructive remittance into the taxable territories of any part of his foreign income - explanation to section 45 is therefore not attracted

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 16 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Commissioner, in issuing the authorisations, can be said to have entertained such reasonable belief as is required by the first sub-s. of s. 132 - no case has been made out of any failure to comply with the provisions of s. 132 or of any disobedience or disregard thereof either in the matter of the issue of authorisations for search or seizure or in the matter of actual searches and seizures of documents

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Ceylon Income Tax Ordinance, 1932 - identical amount will be assessed in each country by applying its own laws - Then that country which charges income in excess of the amount allowed is required to allow an abatement 'equal to the lower of the amounts of tax attributable to such excess in either country - 'tax attributable' in the articles is the gross tax and not the tax arrived at after deducting the reliefs permissible under the laws of a particular country

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether an estimate of income and tax made and sent on a due date for payment of advance tax instalment will entitle the assessee to pay the same in accordance with that estimate and not as per demand of advance tax - held, no

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Whether on a proper construction of the deed of settlement the assessee has any interest in the corpus of the deed of settlement - held, no - whether the right of the assessee derived under the deed of settlement is exempt from wealth-tax by virtue of the provisions of section 2(e)(iv) - held yes

  ---

1234