Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (7) 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 104 Records

• 1967 (7) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Meetings and proceedings - Annual General Meeting ,Company Law Board’s power to call annual general meeting and Power of Company Law Board to Order Meeting to be Called

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Compromise and arrangement, Amalgamation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ith the scheme. The following words appear in clause 8 Upon the approval of the scheme by the court, the existing company shall be closed. Whether the words the existing company shall be closed mean that there is a closure of the company within the contemplation and meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act is left open. Counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the fact that some dates appear in the scheme. One of the dates which appears in some clause is 30th June, 1967. Because of the pendency of the appeal that date requires modification. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the date required modification because of altered and changed circumstances occasioned by the appeal. Wherever 30th June, 1967, occurs it should read as 30th August, 1967. With these observations the scheme as sanctioned is upheld. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. This is a case where I am of opinion that each party should pay and bear its own costs. S. K. Mukherjee J. mdash I agree.

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
  

  Directors - Power of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... disapproved the management by the directors, they could remove the directors, but the general meeting could not, as the articles stood, directly interfere with the management of the business by the directors. There is no case for the respondents that any special resolution had been passed by the company in general meeting so as to constitute a valid modification of the articles of association. It has, therefore, to be held that the directors had acted fully within their powers in deciding to enforce the liability under the promissory note, notwithstanding the recommendation contained in the resolution exhibit P-10 passed by the shareholders at their general meeting. The view taken by the lower appellate court that the board of directors had no authority to override the decision of the general body is, therefore, incorrect. In the result, the decree of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court restored with costs here and in the court below. No leave.

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the provisions of Section 129 of the Customs Act can be said to be provisions relating to procedure relating to appeals within Section 12 of the Excise Act?

  Held that:- Section 35 of the Excise Act gave a right of appeal, but Section 129 of the Customs Act whittles down the substantive right of appeal and accordingly it cannot be regarded as `procedure relating to appeals' within Section 12 of the Excise Act. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 60 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Refusal of registration under section 26A read with section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act to the firm

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 59 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Allowance of development rebate on lorries purchased

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hough the amendment is made after the income under assessment is earned vide Maharajah of Pithapuram v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd. The law in force on 1st April, 1960, would, therefore, govern the assessment in the present case and that law was clearly section 10(2)(vib) read with the proviso. The proviso being in force on 1st April, 1960, was clearly and indubitably applicable and by reason of the proviso no allowance could be claimed by the assessee in respect of the eight new trucks purchased during the year of account. This would appear to be clear on principle and no authority is necessary to support it. But if any authorities were needed, they may be found in Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Gautam Sarabhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax. One answer to the question referred to us is, therefore, in the negative. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 58 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty levied u/s 28(1)(c) - finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars cannot be founded merely on the fact that a certain explanation in regard to credits in the account has been offered by an assessee, which the revenue is not prepared to accept - hence question is answered in affirmitive in favour of assessee

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 57 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Income from the leasing out of the mill building and machinery - asessability - respective shares of the 7 co-owners in the mill are definite and ascertainable - therefore, they come within the purview of section 9 (3)- they were entitled to be assessed separately on their shares, and not assessable in hands of an association of persons

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 56 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Reassessment - section 34(1)(b) - limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ent in view of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, No. 1 of 1959, arises in this case. When the Tribunal held that the reassessment fell for consideration under section 34(1)(b) and not under section 34(1)(a) there could be no occasion for considering the application of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, No. 1 of 1959. We find no reference to that question in the Tribunal s appellate order, and there is nothing to suggest that it was ever raised during the hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Mr. Gopal Behari submits that the reassessment was, in fact, made under section 34(1)(a) and the Tribunal was incompetent to consider it as one made under section 34(1)(p), but that again is not a question framed by the Tribunal and we must, therefore, decline to enter into it. Upon all these considerations, we are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Gopal Behari.The assessee is entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is also assessed at Rs. 200.

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 55 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Wealth Tax - held that sum paid by the assessee as wealth-tax, was an admissible deduction in computing the assessee`s income u/s 12 of the IT Act, 1922

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  ITO included a sum in total income while reopening of assessment - assessee contend that the identical amount has suffered tax in the hands of Kotchu Wareed and that in any case the receipt was in the nature of damages - held that amounts deposited by the assessee can in no sense be regarded as damages

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 53 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Amount reserved for the purpose of construction of the roads - It is not a case where a definite liability had been incurred - It was a case where the amount had been provisionally kept in reserve - so assessee had not incurred any enforceable liability

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 52 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Section 4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Whether section 4(3)(i) of the IT Act, 1922, will apply equally in regard to section 11 of the IT Act, 1961 - held that element of public benefit requisite to attract the applicability of s. 4(3)(i) and the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption under s. 4(3)(i)

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Amount spent in converting the latrines and the labourers` quarters - deductibility - claim of deduction under section 10(2)(ii) made by the assessee was rightly rejected by the Tribunal

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Non-declaration of dividend - company left with no accumulated profits - ITO determined the distributable surplus u/s 23A - Tribunal was justified in holding that no order under s. 23A should have been made for the three years in view of the fact that the non-trading loss of Rs. 6,88,000 was not wiped off in the accounts

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 49 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessee was entitled to `earned income relief` - payments made to the assessee were not chargeable under the head ` salaries` and hence the earned income relief could not be given to the assessee

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 48 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Dividends deemed distributed to shareholders u/s 23A - assessability

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ent in the taxable territories during such year, accrue or arise or are deemed to accrue or arise to him in the taxable territories during such year ... Explanation 3.--A dividend paid by an Indian company without the taxable territories shall be deemed to be income accruing and arising in the taxable territories to the extent to which it has been paid out of profit subjected to income-tax in the taxable territories. Now, as we have already observed, the payment of dividend was not made by an Indian company the dividend cannot also be deemed to have accrued to the non-resident shareholder in the taxable territory in the year of declaration of the dividend. Thus fiction eclipses facts and calls for a negative answer to the question referred to this court. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax shall pay to the assessee the costs of this reference. K. L. ROY J.-I agree. Question answered in the negative.

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Madras Agricultural Income Tax Act - sum paid out to the managing partner of the firm - whether deductible as an expenditure under s. 5(e)

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assets of the dissolved firm including the shares were taken over by the private limited company - real owner - registered shareholder - Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount included as dividend in the total income of the assessee in consequence of an order u/s 23A should be excluded

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Notices issued under sections 13(1) and 15 of Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 - notices were issued against an entity, which was no longer in existence - notices were rightly quashed

  ---

123456