Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (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 41 to 60 of 78 Records

• 1967 (9) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, once a petition is admitted to the file, the court is bound forthwith to advertise the petition?

  Held that:- The High Court has disposed of the appeal on a ground of procedure and has not considered whether the view of H. R. Khanna J. that in the exercise of the inherent power for the ends of justice and for .prevention of the abuse of the process of court, the petition should not be advertised, is correct. The case is therefore remanded with the direction that the High Court do deal with and dispose of the appeal according to law

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... gainst the petitioners. 5.It was also urged on behalf of the respondents that, in any view of the matter, the order of the Central Board of Revenue did not debar the respondents from holding an inquiry into the charges against the petitioners since the order of the second respondent which was impugned in appeal before the Central Board of Revenue was null and void by reason of non-compliance with the rules of natural justice and the order of the Central Board of Revenue in appeal merely vacated the order of the second respondent as null and void and there was accordingly no final order disposing of the proceedings in favour of the petitioners. But it is not necessary to examine the validity of this contention, since we have already held in favour of the respondents on the first contention. We do not, therefore, propose to deal with this contention. The result, therefore, is that the petition fails and the rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs of the petition.

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Natural justice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 13.One other point may be mentioned. The instructions in Para 21(b) of the Manual also deprives the petitioner of getting remedy by way of an appeal to the Collector of Central Excise, which he will be entitled to if the Assistant Collector had passed the order without getting prior approval of the Collector, but he is obliged to go all the way to Delhi to the Central Board of Revenue, because such prior approval had been obtained. 14.For all the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion, that the orders in all the four cases cannot be supported. The same legal point discussed above in Writ Petition No. 2115 of 1964 arises in the other writ petitions also. I, therefore, allow all the writ petitions and quash the orders by issue of writ of Certiorari with costs. Advocate s fee one set, Rs. 200/- to be included in Writ Petition No. 2115 of 1964. It will be open to the Department to restore the cases to file and dispose them of on merits and in the light of the observations above.

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Speculative transactions - Whether, Tribunal was justified in holding that the passing of pucca delivery orders did not amount to actual delivery of goods and the loss incurred in the transactions of purchase and sale was speculative loss within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 34 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Transfer of the business by the assessee - capital gains - there is no material on record to show that the amount mentioned in the document as consideration for the transfer is not the fair market value of the property on the date of the said transfer - Tribunal was not correct in holding that no capital gains taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arose to the assessee

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether an order transferring a case passed by one member of CBDT and not by the entire Board is valid - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Obligation on HC - There is no obligation upon the High Court to decide the question of law if the party, at whose instance the reference has been made, is absent when the case is called on for hearing

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Sum paid as wealth-tax - claim for deduction of wealth-tax paid by the assessee as an admissible expenditure is not lawful

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 30 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949 - section 9 of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 - Whether the assessee was the owner of the property known as N Hotel in Pakistan in the relevant accounting year - Whether the assessee was entitled to the loss claimed by it by conversion of the purchase price from Pakistan currency to Indian currency

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 29 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Hyderabad Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 - Certificate Proceedings - Whether the petitioner can be said to be an `assessee in default` within the meaning of that expression found in the section 34(3) of the Hyderabad Agrl. IT Act, 1950 - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the disallowance of Rs. 16,977 from out of the salary paid to T. Mohammed Farooq is justified - amount of which deduction is claimed was not laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee`s business, and the disallowance of the sum was quite justified and proper

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Income escaping assessment owing to allowance of excessive loss - Whether in the course of reassessment proceedings properly initiated under the provisions of cl. (a) of s. 34(1) of the Act, the assessee can claim the revision of the loss that was determined in the original assessment which had otherwise become final and conclusive so far as he was concerned - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 26 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Trust created having clause of meeting and feast - cannot be considered as for religious purpose

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Profits estimated at flat rates which was based on comparable cases - no details of the cases which the ITO considered as comparable were ever furnished to the assessee - violation of the settled principle on the subject and the provision of s. 142(3)- assessment on estimated basis was invalid

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Madras Agricultural Income Tax Act - Maintainability of application for revision to HC against order of Commissioner

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - Tribunal referring question of valuation of property to valuers. Altering valuation fixed by valuers - Tribunal had no jurisdiction to alter valuation and any question of law arose out of its order

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Admissibility of additional evidence under r. 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules or under O. 41 r. 27 of Civil Procedure Code

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  ITO assessing income of a person which Tribunal on appeal held that it was not income of that person. Reassessment by ITO of the person who filed the return - Whether reassessment was valid - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Depreciation - asset is partially used for purposes of business - held that proportionate part of the cost of asset could not be considered to calculate proportionate depreciation - held that proportionate depreciation can be calculated by deducting from original cost of the asset only the actual depreciation allowed for part user

  ---

• 1967 (9) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Bsdbebt - deductibility

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... think that in judging whether a debt is bad there can be two standards. The standard as has been laid down by the authorities is that of a reasonably prudent businessman or director of a company coming to the conclusion that the debt advanced by him to a particular debtor is wholly irrecoverable. Of course, it is impossible in a given case to define what is the standard of a reasonably prudent man. That will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We do not think therefore that the concept of commercial insolvency can be imported into a consideration of the question whether and under what circumstances a debt becomes bad. Having considered all the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the tax authorities were right in the conclusion reached by them. We, therefore, answer the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative. Since the decision is wholly against the assessee, the assessee shall pay the costs of the Commissioner.

  ---

1234