Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 111 Records
-
1968 (8) TMI 31
Gift Tax Act, 1958 - Whether section 5(1) of GT Act, 1958 is applicable and the allowance could be granted in respect of immovable property - Held no
-
1968 (8) TMI 30
Civil revision petitions under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders of the CIT declining to interfere under section 33A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, with the inclusion made by the Income-tax Officer in the total income - petition is allowed - order of Commissioner are quashed
-
1968 (8) TMI 29
Agricultural Income - exemption under section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ... ... ... ... ..... hat the watering is one of the conditions of his licence and not an act whereby the agricultural produce has been raised, for that was raised before he obtained his licence. The actual decision, therefore, in that case was that the income was not agricultural in character. That, if we may say so with respect, supports the view we have taken of the facts in the instant case. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maddi Venkatasubbayya, relied on for the revenue, may, however, not be quite apposite. For, in that case, as rightly sought to be distinguished for the assessee, the right which was the subject-matter of the agreement related only to cut and remove tobacco which was ripe for harvest and which was cultivated by another, and the transaction did not spread over a period. That means that the interest created by the agreement would not even amount to an interest in immovable property. We answer the question under reference in favour of the revenue with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1968 (8) TMI 28
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - Whether the receipt from the sale of teak trees for the purpose of planting the area with rubber is capital in nature and exempt from the Agrl. IT Act - Held, no
-
1968 (8) TMI 27
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - expenses for preparation of the agricultural income-tax returns - held that impugned expenditure are allowable in determining the assessable income under the Agrl. IT Act
-
1968 (8) TMI 26
Assessee is not admittedly a dealer in shares - business income - deduction - income arose to the assessee out of the investments on shares - it would not fall under the head `business`, but only under the head `other sources`- expenditure incurred by way of interest paid in respect of investments made for buying shares cannot be claimed as a business expenditure of the assessee
-
1968 (8) TMI 25
Firm - registration ... ... ... ... ..... the Income-tax Officer. It seems to have been discovered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It is not necessary under law that the books of accounts should be produced along with the application for renewal of the registration of the firm, or that the postings in the books of accounts should be made before a specified date, or that, if there is any apparent omission or error in the postings made in the books, it cannot be rectified. At the most, this was only a case of error, which the assessee would have rectified, if it ever came to his notice. We do not think that this would in any manner render the assessee s application for renewal of registration invalid. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Appellate Tribunal as required by section 66(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
-
1968 (8) TMI 24
Agricultural income - held that remuneration received by a person for managing agricultural property would not be agricultural income
-
1968 (8) TMI 23
Property of HUF - even where an assessee has only a wife or unmarried daughter and no son, the property received by him in respect of his share in the joint family properties on partition, belongs to the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his wife or unmarried daughter and is liable to be assessed as property of the Hindu undivided family and not as his individual property
-
1968 (8) TMI 22
Application for Reference - there is no evidence that before Dec. 31, 1949, dividend was paid, credited or distributed to the bank. By virtue of s. 4(1)(a), the income was held properly taxable in the assessment year 1950-51. It is unnecessary therefore to consider whether even if the bank was a non-resident on July 25, 1949, by virtue of s. 4(1)(b)(ii), it was liable to be taxed in respect of the dividend income in the year of assessment 1950-51 - Assessee's appeal is dismissed
-
1968 (8) TMI 21
Whether a notice had been served under section 19(2) of the Act on the respondents and therefore the reasoning of the High Court was based on an erroneous assumption that no such notice had been served?
Held that:- It was held that the voluntary return filed by the assessee, even though it did not disclose any taxable income, was a good return. As such, no question arose under section 34(1) of income escaping assessment and the Income-tax Officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section 34(1). The assessment which was therefore made pursuant to the notice under that section was barred by time, having been made beyond the period prescribed.
The principle which has been settled by this decision is that where a voluntary return has been filed pursuant to a general notice even after the expiry of the period mentioned in that notice, the Income-tax Officer must proceed to assess the income by taking up that return. He cannot ignore that return and serve on the assessee a notice under the provisions relating to escaped income which was section 34 in the Income-tax Act. Appeal allowed.
-
1968 (8) TMI 20
Securities issued by Indian States of Tranvancore and Cochin are securities of a State Govt. within the meaning of the third proviso to section 8 of IT Act, 1922. Therefore the interest on securities issued by the erstwhile Indian States of Travancore and Cochin was assessable u/s 8 of the Act not u/s 12 of the Act - Assessee's appeal is allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 19
Commission was earned and received by the assessee independently of any fluctuation in the market and no risk was involved in the earning of the commission and so it must be treated as profit from the other business of the assessee and not as profit from speculation business - Revenue's appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 18
Balancing Charge - assessee contention that the business had been transferred as a whole an, therefore, no profit could be taxed under the provision to section 10(2)(vii), is rejected - Revenue appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 17
Income From Undisclosed Sources - If the amount of Rs.2,20,000 represented income of the assessee of the previous year, it was liable to be included in the total income of the assessee, and an enquiry whether for the purpose of bringing the amount to tax the income was from a business activity or from other source was not relevant - revenue's appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 16
Manager of the family (HUF) was arrested and detained in civil prison - held that on failure to pay tax by the HUF, manager could not be arrested and detained in civil prision under Sch. II, O. 76 - Assessee's appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 15
Commission paid by the assess to general manager was amount laid out wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business - deduction allowed - Assessee's appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 14
Section 10(2)(vii), proviso (ii) is attracted if there be a sale of the building, machinery or plant and the amount for which the sale takes place exceeds the written down value of the assets transferred. If there be no sale, the proviso has no application - Revenue's appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 13
On a proper construction of s. 297(2)(d)(ii) of the new Act, the ITO cannot issue a notice under s. 148 in order to reopen the assessment of an assessee in a case where the right to reopen the assessment was barred under the old Act at the date when the new Act came into force - notice issued by ITO under s. 148 of IT Act, 1961 was liable to set aside - Revenue appeal dismissed
-
1968 (8) TMI 12
KC in respect of his individual income had never been assessed to tax before he filed the returns and, unless the returns filed by him were disposed of, no notice under s. 34 was competent - assessments made by the ITO pursuant to the notice under s. 34 of the IT Act, 1922, was invalid
|