Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1969 1969 (7) 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 66 Records

• 1969 (7) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Reference to HC - additional grounds of appeal - dismissal of application to raise additional grounds by the Tribunal - whether such dismissal can be made subject matter of reference to HC - Held, no

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Litigation expenses spent by retired partners against the remaining partners for determining assets of partnership and for recovering the share from the firm - allowability - expenditure cannot be said to be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of carrying on the firm's business

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Speculation loss - sum paid under award - scope of Explnation 2 to section 24(1) of the IT Act, 1922

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Determining the break-up value of the shares held by the assessee - valuation of the depreciable assets of the company concerned should be based on their income-tax written down value in place of their balance-sheet value

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the demands remaining unpaid in respect of instalments falling due after the valuation date cannot be treated to be 'outstanding' for a period of more than 12 months on the valuation date within the meaning of section 2(m)(iii)(b) of the Wealth-tax, Act 1957, and in directing accordingly that the entire should be treated as a debt owed by the assessee under section 2(m) - Held, yes

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Applicant, Indian Sugar Mills Association, claimed that the income arising from the sugar export division should not be subjected to tax - Whether on a proper construction of the rules and regulations of the association the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the association derived from the business of export of sugar and interest from current and fixed deposits were not exempt from tax under section 4(3)(i) - Held, no

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 20 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Addition - Whether the addition by the Tribunal was not based on any reasoning and was speculative - since AAC gave detailed reasons for such additions and Tribunal held that those reasons were sound, additions made were justified

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 19 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  H.E.H. was the erstwhile Ruler of Hyderabad State prior to its integration with the Union of India, was the assessee - Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption from tax on the income under the terms of the agreement entered into with the Govt. of India - Held, yes

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the statutory percentages applicable u/s 23A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to the distribution of dividends on 24th March, 1960, were 45 per cent. and 60 per cent. in respect of processing receipts and trading receipts respectively - Held, yes

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Income from property - assessability

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d therefore could not partake of the character of joint family property in his hands-simply because two female members entitled only to maintenance were there with him to constitute a family. The present case clearly would not fall within the principle of Arunachalam s case but would equally clearly fall within the principle of Kalyanji s case. In the view which we take it is unnecessary to go into the further question raised by Mr. Joshi on behalf of the department based on a remark of the Supreme Court dealing with the doctrine of blending in Mallesappa v. Mallappa at page 1272, column 1, that the basis of the doctrine is the existence of coparcenary and coparcenary property... or the question raised in reply to that argument whether the doctrine of blending at all applies to the facts here. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal, though for somewhat different reasons. We answer the question raised in the negative. The assessee shall pay the costs of the Commissioner.

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 16 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - registration

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the advisory jurisdiction of this court is confined only to matters where a question of law arises, and, in view of our finding that in the facts of the present case no question of law arose, we do not think it proper to exercise the said jurisdiction merely on account of the fact that a reference has been made under section 256(1) by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessees. Speaking on behalf of the Division Bench in Munshi Gulab Singh (R.S.) and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mahajan J., as he then was said As I have already stated, if on facts stated no question of law arises of the question that arises is purely of an academic nature then this court is not bound to answer the question referred. In our opinion, the said view is correct and we adopt it. We, therefore, refuse to answer the question referred to this court on the ground indicated above. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. G. K. MISRA C.J.-I agree

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Excess Profits Tax Act - section 10A

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ion 15. An order under section 10A can be passed only where the Excess Profits Tax Officer is seized of jurisdiction in a pending assessment proceeding. The main question for consideration in that reference was the competance of action under section 15 of the Act. It was found that such action was not competent. It was, therefore, held that the Excess Profits Tax Officer had no jurisdiction in the matter. In the present reference no question of jurisdiction arises. We have to answer the question which is actually before us in the instant reference. We are not concerned with the decision of the case between the parties reported as Gurbux Rai Harbux Rai v. Commissioner of Income-tax. It will be for the Tribunal to give effect to the two decisions of the court in the two separate references. We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative, and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay the Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., Rs. 200 as costs of this reference.

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 14 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty imposed u/s. 28(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1922 - validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... decision has been distinguished and it was rightly observed that it throws no light on the question at issue. Examined in the light of the aforesaid dictum, the Tribunal s view that the assessee concealed his income cannot be supported. In support of this view, reliance was placed merely on the decision in the assessment proceeding. The department made no endeavour to prove that there was any concealment. It is one thing to discard the explanation of the assessee in the assessment proceeding it is altogether a different thing to say that concealment has been established. The Tribunal, therefore, wrongly held that the assessee was liable to pay penalty. On the aforesaid analysis, we would answer the question by saying that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, has not been validly imposed. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. P. N. MISRA J.- I agree.

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether assets of the new company held by bank can be attached u/s 46(5A) by the ITO to recovers arrears of tax due under and assessment made on the company under the forms name - Held, yes

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 12 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Compensation paid for acquiring certain unexpired permits to carry on business free from competition - such expenditure is of a capital nature

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 11 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - assessee had deposited advance gift tax under section 18 of the Gift Tax Act and was given credit for 10 per cent of the amount deposited, at the time of assessment - Whether the amount to be deducted under section 50A of the Estate Duty Act had been correctly determined by the Tribunal - Held, yes

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee unable to furnish addresses of persons in whose names cash sale transactions were recorded - there was no necessity for the assessee to maintain addresses of cash customers and the failure to maintain or supply them as and when called for cannot be regarded as a circumstance giving rise to a suspicion with regard to the genuineness of the transactions - book results cannot be rejected by ITO

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 9 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether revocable transactions like leasehold salt lands could be regarded as assets of the lessee for computation of wealth-tax - Held, no

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessee-company was a company in which the public are substantially interested and was consequently outside the operation of s. 23A(1) by reason of third proviso thereto - since shares carrying more than 25 % of the voting power are held by the public and its shares are also, freely transferable by the holders thereof to the other members of the public, it must be held that the assessee-company is a company in which the public are substantially interested

  ---

• 1969 (7) TMI 7 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the life insurance premia and interest thereon paid by cheque on the assessee's overdraft account with the State Bank of India was allowable as a debt under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act - Held, no

  ---

1234