Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 80 Records
-
1967 (8) TMI 20
Speculative Transactions - Whether the assessee was entitled to set off the loss against its other business income - Held, no
-
1967 (8) TMI 19
Proceedings u/s 34(1)(a) - service of notices u/s 34(1)(a) on D, who was only one of the legal heirs of the deceased - since sanction of the Commissioner for initiating proceedings against the assessee was given in the status of `association of persons`, proceedings against the assessee was invalid
-
1967 (8) TMI 18
Whether the assessee was an exporter entitled to the rebate contemplated in s. 2(5)(i) of the Finance Act, 1963 - Held, no
-
1967 (8) TMI 17
Illegal contracts - Even though the said contracts were not validly entered, the said loss is liable to be taken into account in computing the business income of the assessee under section 10 and the assessee is entitled to set it off against the profit from other speculative transactions
-
1967 (8) TMI 16
Whether witness can claim privilege - held thatwitness cannot claim any statutory privilege exempting him from replying to this question and the court can ask him to answer the question under O. XI, r. 11, of the Civil Procedure Code
-
1967 (8) TMI 15
Notice of Reassessment u/s 34(1)(a) - validity of notice ... ... ... ... ..... vious that the conclusion of the Kerala High Court that the notices were not properly served on all the persons who represented the estate of the deceased assessee, was correct. Thus the above three decisions, one of the Mysore High Court and two of the Kerala High Court, on which the Tribunal relied for its conclusion in the instant case, can all be distinguished. In our opinion, on the facts of the instant case, particularly in view of the fact that the return was filed by the assessee in pursuance of the notice which was served on the temporary employee, Kumbhar Nameri, it is clear that the notice must have been received by the assessee and that being the case, the proceedings under section 34(1)(a) must be deemed to have been properly instituted and there was no invalidity so far as the notice under section 34(1)(a) is concerned. We, therefore, answer the question as reframed above in the affirmative. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner.
-
1967 (8) TMI 14
Held that compensations were admissible deduction in law for the purpose of assessment under the IT Act
-
1967 (8) TMI 13
Notice of Reassessment - Service of Notice - held that ITO has power to proceed against third party u/s 226(3) for recovery of tax due to assessee, without issuing certificate against assessee u/s 222
-
1967 (8) TMI 12
There was a karar in the tarwad executed by all the members by which the properties of the tarwad have been allotted to female and the junior members of the tarwad for their maintenance - arrangement made in the karar of 1909, for the maintenance of the junior members of tarwad is not a diversion of the tarwad income - Held that provisions of s.s. (1) of s. 9 of the Act are applicable only in cases of diversion of income
-
1967 (8) TMI 11
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iii) and 16(3)(b) of the IT Act, 1922, were not applicable in regard to the transfer shares by the assessee to his mother and brother`s wife, and in deleting the dividend income in respect of the said shares from the assessee`s taxable income - Held, no
-
1967 (8) TMI 10
Arrears of depreciation - Where the balance-sheet gives the value of the assets as on a valuation date and shows also, though separately, that the value so given has not taken into account the arrears of admissible depreciation, the WTO has a duty to make necessary adjustments towards such depreciation -assessee is entitled to deduction
-
1967 (8) TMI 9
Assessee claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 28,37,282-8-0, representing taxes, penalties, etc. - provisions of s. 2(m)(iii) are a bar to the deduction of Rs. 28,37,282 in the computation of the net wealth of the assessee as on the relevant valuation dates
-
1967 (8) TMI 8
WTO assessed the assessee, in respect of family assets, in the status of a HUF - assessee appealed before the AAC and, inter alia, contended that the assessee being a member of a Jain family could not be treated as a HUF - contention of assessee is acceptable - assessment were rightly set aside by tribunal
-
1967 (8) TMI 7
Amount paid by the company to the Delhi Improvement Trust by way of rent for the site for the earlier years cannot be taken to be a part of the cost of construction of the cinema theatre for the purpose of the company claiming depreciation thereon
-
1967 (8) TMI 6
Whether the value of the properties left by the assessee`s mother and which properties were given to her under the registered partition deed, dated Oct. 3, 1955, executed by and between the members of the assessee HUF have been rightly included in the net wealth of the assessee - Held, yes
-
1967 (8) TMI 5
Neither the IAC nor the Tribunal found that the assessee`s explanation was false - there was no other material from which an inference of concealment of income could be drawn - no penalty could be imposed on the assessee
-
1967 (8) TMI 4
Whether the dividend income of the assessee-company should be taken to be the market value of the shares on the date of declaration of dividend and not the value as stated in the resolution of the company which declared the dividend - Held, yes
-
1967 (8) TMI 3
Insurance business - excess premium was entered in the books of the assessee-company in the premium deposit account - assessee-company transferred the sum of Rs. 33,905 to its revenue account - ITO was not justified in treating the said amount as gross external incomings of the year under r. 2(a) of the Rules for the computation of the profits and gains of insurance business
-
1967 (8) TMI 2
Loss return - time prescribed by s. 22(2A) of the IT Act, 1922, for filing the loss return, had expired and neither the assessee asked for an extension of time nor was the same granted by the ITO suo motu - ITO treated the return as invalid - appeal filed by the assessee before the AAC is not competent u/s 30
-
1967 (8) TMI 1
Bad debt - money-lending business - loss arose from the investment and not in connection with the business being carried on by the assessee-company - It was thus a capital loss and not a loss incidental to the business - not permissible deduction as bad debt
|