Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 112 Records
-
1969 (2) TMI 52
Notice for reassessment - petitioner challenging the notices and contended that there could be no assessment after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment years - held that notice issued is invalid
-
1969 (2) TMI 51
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Whether the muafi grant held by the deceased, Narayan Rao, passed, on his death was property within the meaning of section 2(15) - as the muafi lapsed on the death of Narayan Rao, it did not pass on his death - When the muafi held by N lapsed and thus came to an end, how can it be said that it passed or changed hands -held that it was not property passing on his death
-
1969 (2) TMI 50
Assessee is a resident-company - ITO treated the assessee-company as the agent in India of the U.K. company u/s 43 of the IT Act, 1922, and assessed a net income in its hands as the income of the non-resident, after deducting an estimated expense - Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not an agent of the non-resident company
-
1969 (2) TMI 49
Assessee is a resident and an ordinary resident within the taxable territories - Whether there was evidence or material before the Tribunal for its conclusion that the interest received by the assessee in the Part B State had been brought into the taxable territories - Held, yes
-
1969 (2) TMI 48
Interpretation of the provisions of s. 10(2)(via) of the IT Act, 1922, as amended by the IT (Amendment) Act, 1953 - entitlement of allowance of additional depreciation on building
-
1969 (2) TMI 47
Whether the assessee is entitled to development rebate in respect of light fittings and water pipe fittings - items in question can in no sense be classified as office appliances to attract the second proviso to section 10(2)(vib) - regarded as plant within the meaning of that clause, these items are entitled to development rebate
-
1969 (2) TMI 46
Assessee, a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act - If a trader received money as trading receipt and employs that money as his own fund and is then called upon to refund the money, even then it is trading receipt of the trader but when he pays back that money the amounts refunded may be considered for deduction at the time when it is refunded.
-
1969 (2) TMI 45
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - assessment ... ... ... ... ..... defective, we would not be right in thinking that the petitioner cannot appeal to our jurisdiction under that constitutional provision. So, we take the view that the assessment in so far as it concerns the petitioner cannot be supported. But since the assessment made by the Assistant Controller is an indivisible assessment which created a joint and several liability in respect of the third share in the property belonging to the Aliyasantana family, and in the view that we take, the assessment could be made only with respect to a sixth share the value of which had to be independently determined, it is plain that we cannot maintain any portion of the assessment order which has to fall to the ground in its entirety. So we set aside the order of the Assistant Controller reserving liberty for him to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law and in conformity with the observations made in the course of this order. In the circumstances, we make no direction in regard to costs.
-
1969 (2) TMI 44
Taxability of amount received by the assessee as subscription from its members ... ... ... ... ..... from the taint of commerciality. The entrance fees and periodical subscriptions paid by the members for obtaining membership of the assessee-club in the present case and which remain payable even if the racing is stopped or suspended, cannot be said to be received by the assessee out of any profit motive and they remain immune from the taint of commerciality even when the members are allowed the privilege of a free admission into stands, where non-members would be required to pay, the said members privileges being clearly referable to their membership of the club. The receipts from members subscriptions or entrance fees by the assessee cannot, therefore, form part of its assessable income and the sum of Rs. 11,000 received by the assessee as subscription from its members is not taxable. The answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is in the affirmative. In the circumstances, the revenue shall pay the costs of the respondent. Counsel s fee Rs. 100. KAPUR J.-I agree.
-
1969 (2) TMI 43
Whether remuneration paid by a Hindu undivided family to the karta for services rendered could be a deduction in the computation of the income of the Hindu undivided family - Held, yes
-
1969 (2) TMI 42
Assessee filed its return of income in individual capacity - tribunal corrected the status of the assessee as Hindu Undivided Family - leviability of penalty in the name of the assessee in his individual capacity
-
1969 (2) TMI 41
Deduction - admissible expenditure - computation of business income - section 10 ... ... ... ... ..... . Though the head may be one, namely, business, where its components are different as in the case of several businesses run, each of a distinct nature, each has got to be taken as a separate unit for purposes of ascertainment of profits. Expenditure under section 10(1) is allowed not as a deduction or as allowance but as the component inherent in the process of ascertaining the profits, namely, arriving at the net result of credits and debits referable to a particular independent activity of business. The expenditure should partake of the very source of profit, namely, the particular business activity and it is taken into account as an outgoing in ascertaining the profits. The aggregation of the profits derived from several independent business activities can make no difference to this particular phenomenon involved in the process o ascertaining the profits from each business activity. On that view we answer the question against the assessee with costs Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1969 (2) TMI 40
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - share of the deceased in the partnership - chargeability to the Act as movable property
-
1969 (2) TMI 39
Question whether the assessee's transactions amounted to dealing in shares and properties or in investment, is a mixed question of law and fact and the legal effect of the facts found by the Tribunal on which the assessee could be treated as a dealer or an investor, is a question of law
-
1969 (2) TMI 38
Penalty for non-compliance with notice under sub-s. (2) of s. 22 of the Act of 1922 - validity of imposition of penalty
-
1969 (2) TMI 37
Assessee obtained a lease of a new building and, in doing so, he had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,001 to the landlord as an extra payment over and above the stipulated rent, which was not refundable - object of the assessee, was merely, by incurring the business expenditure, to produce profits and not to create any asset of a capital character - hence it is deductible in arriving at the assessee`s income
-
1969 (2) TMI 36
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - property - chargebility to estate duty ... ... ... ... ..... der section 21(2) of the Act shows that even the interest of a simple mortgagee in the hypotheca is treated as movable property for the purpose of the Act. The same provision further shows that only the interest of a mortgagee in possession will be considered as immovable property. That we think is an indication that, unless the deceased had a direct interest in the land in the shape of possession thereof, merely because under the general law he has an interest as a mortgagee in the hypotheca, such interest cannot be considered to be immovable property. We answer the question against the accountable persons but make it clear that it is only the compensation that the deceased was entitled to receive in respect of lands notified during his lifetime for being taken over that would be includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased, and that the sum of Rs. 77,227 was rightly included in such principal value. The revenue is entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1969 (2) TMI 35
Transaction of sale (of shares) cannot be said to be merely a conversion of one form of asset into another giving rise to capital gain - therefore, Tribunal was justified in its view that the transaction was an advanture in nature of trade and the gain was charged to tax as business income
-
1969 (2) TMI 34
Capital assets transferred by reason of the liquidation of a company - such a transaction was not to be treated u/s 12B as a sale, exchange or transfer of capital assets - therefore the Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee was liable to tax u/s 12B
-
1969 (2) TMI 33
Exemption u/s 15C - industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... ult of splitting up of any existing industrial undertaking. But what is stated for the Commissioner is that the machinery being second-hand, it was well within the description of machinery previously used in a business. In a sense, no doubt, the machinery could possibly have been used in the United Kingdom from which it was imported. But the finding of both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal is that the machinery was re-conditioned and it was as new as reconditioned machinery could be. It is not suggested for the revenue that the machinery as reconditioned and before its import into this country was ever used in any business. That will suffice to answer the reference. The Tribunal has gone further and thought that the user of the machinery must also be in any other business carried on in this country. We do not have to decide this point on the particular facts of this case. We answer the question against the revenue with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
|