Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1969 1969 (2) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 112 of 112 Records
-
1969 (2) TMI 12
High Court is not a Court of appeal in a reference u/s. 66 of the Act and it is not open to the High Court in such a reference to embark upon a reappraisal of the evidence and to arrive at findings of fact contrary to those of the Appellate Tribunal - assessment made u/s. 34(1)(a) of the IT Act was justified in law - Revenue's appeal allowed
-
1969 (2) TMI 11
Whether the 40 per cent. of the profits of the business of Arya Vaidyashala payable to the two thavazies is assessable as 'unearned income' in the hands of the trustees under section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and subject to the levy of a special surcharge - Held yes - Revenue's appeal dismissed
-
1969 (2) TMI 10
Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default of appearance by invoking rule 24 - Rule 24 of Tribunal Rules, 1946, as amended in 1948 clearly comes into conflict of s. 33(4) and is therefore ultra vires - Revenue appeal dismissed
-
1969 (2) TMI 9
Whether the assessments on the deities through the shebaits were in accordance with law - A Hindu deity falls within the meaning of the word `individual` under s. 3 of the Act and can be treated as a unit of assessment under that section - question should be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax
-
1969 (2) TMI 8
Mining business - accounting year - company obtained a prospecting licence after prospecting for coal sold the colliery, and thereby earned a profit of Rs. 51,550 - impugned profit is in nature of revenue hence liable to income tax - similarly loss of Rs. 34,891 was allowable as a deduction against the business income
-
1969 (2) TMI 7
Lease of company - intention was to use the income arising from the royalty in its capacity as the owner of the factory - income of the assessee-company was liable to be assessed under s. 12 of the IT Act and not under s. 10 - additional depreciation and development rebate can not be allowed as a deduction - Assessee appeal dismissed
-
1969 (2) TMI 6
Partnership firm - business in which the loss had been sustained by the assessee when he was a partner of the first firm which was dissolved on March 31, 1955, continued to be carried on by him in partnership with three other persons during the assessment year 1956-57 - assessee is entitled under the provisions of section 24(2) of the Act to set off his share of unabsorbed loss - Revenue appeal dismissed
-
1969 (2) TMI 5
Share premium account is liable to be included in the paid-up capital for the purpose of computing rebate if it is maintained as a separate account - Revenue appeal dismissed
-
1969 (2) TMI 4
Assessee purchasing the estate to re-sell it at a profit - division of the land into 23 plots and the sale to the various purchasers indicate that there was scheming and organisation on the part of the assessee. Having regard to the total effect of all these circumstances, High Court was right in its conclusion that the transactions of the assessee constituted an adventure in the nature of trade and were in the course of a profit-making scheme - Assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1969 (2) TMI 3
Appellant who had entered into the contract with M/s. Tata Aircraft Ltd. in respect of the purchase of parachutes - no question of the appellant having relinquished a share in the partnership - Receipt of Rs. 1,87,000 in the hands of the assessee is a revenue receipt and liable to income-tax - Assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1969 (2) TMI 2
There was no real or sufficient connection between the partnership to D - remuneration was paid for the specific acts of management done by D - salary received by D from the two firms is not includible in the assessment of the Hindu undivided family of which Shri D was the karta - Revenue appeal dismissed
-
1969 (2) TMI 1
Carry Forward And Set Off - cloth business of the assessee and its business in the general section constituted the same business within the meaning of section 24(2) - conclusion of the Tribunal that the transactions in cloth were part and parcel of a single business carried on by the appellant and did not constitute a distinct business for the purpose of section 24(2), is correct - Assessee's appeal allowed
....
|
|