Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 89 Records
-
1969 (9) TMI 29
Return filed on the last date of the period of limitation - validity ... ... ... ... ..... r. Pal also referred me to the aforesaid decision of the Privy Council in Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd. v. Singapore Improvement Trust, and the material point is enunciated in clause (d) of the headnote to that report, namely A proceeding is none-the-less a judicial proceeding subject to prohibition or certiorari because it is subject to confirmation or approval by some other authority. An application for prohibition or certiorari is never too late as long as there is something left for it to operate upon. Looked at from the point of view of established decisions Dr. Pal s contention that delay in presenting the petition would not bar the petitioner from obtaining relief by way of prohibition or certiorari against orders either in excess of jurisdiction or in exercise of erroneous jurisdiction must be upheld. None of the grounds urged by Mr. Gupta is of any substance. The rule would be made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (c). There will be no order as to costs.
-
1969 (9) TMI 28
Firm - renewal of registration ... ... ... ... ..... ated on the share of the minor but which has to be borne by the other major partners. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the partnership deed or the application filed by the partners for registration or renewal of the firm suffers from any such infirmity. The registration of the firm cannot therefore be refused on that ground. We must make it clear that in so far as the second and third questions were concerned, no arguments were advanced before us. We would, therefore, take it that the decision of the Tribunal in those respects stands good and does not call for any interference. Our answer to the first question therefore is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the department. In regard to the second question, our answer is in the affirmative and in regard to the third also in the affirmative. The assessee will be entitled to get his costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 (rupees two hundred and fifty only). Questions answered in the affirmative.
-
1969 (9) TMI 27
Transfer of officer - pending penalty proceedings - imposition of penalty by the succeeding officer without giving notice to the assessee - validity of levy of penalty
-
1969 (9) TMI 26
Impartible properties - whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the department is correct in law in determining the status of the assessee as an individual and not as joint family
-
1969 (9) TMI 25
Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Whether in determining the break-up value of the shares held by the assessee in Messrs. Hind Mills Ltd. and Messrs. Shree Hanuman Sugar Mills Ltd., the Income-tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the valuation of the depreciable assets of the companies concerned should be based on their income-tax written down values in place of their balance-sheet values - Held, yes
-
1969 (9) TMI 24
Sums paid as contribution to the Cane Centre Roads Development Fund - contribution was for the purpose of constructing roads for improving transport facilities - contribution made by the assessee brought assets of capital nature into existence - rightly treated as capital expenditure
-
1969 (9) TMI 23
Interest paid on borrowed capital - Whether the interest payment of Rs. 2,38,614 represents an element of the actual cost of the machinery, plant, etc., to the assessee and as such depreciation and development rebate are admissible with reference to this amount also - Interest paid on borrowed capital forms part of the actual cost of the machinery to the assessee within the meaning of s. 10(2)(vi) - Reference answered in the negative, in favour of the department
-
1969 (9) TMI 22
Amount spent in some criminal proceedings is an allowable deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the IT Act, 1922
-
1969 (9) TMI 21
ITO included in the assessment of the assessee the share incomes of the minor sons including the interest which was credited to their respective capital accounts in the firm`s account books - held that share income of the minors was rightly included in the income assessed in the hands of the assessee
-
1969 (9) TMI 20
Petitioner carrying on tea business - It also has dividend income - petitioner claims that it also carries on the business of investing monies in shares of tea companies and its income from dividend is income from its business - petitioner had not produced sufficient materials to satisfy the Commissioner that the shares were part of its trading assets - Commissioner can't be said to have acted arbitrarily in refusing the claim
-
1969 (9) TMI 19
Interest of the assessee in the trusts was claimed by the assessee as in the nature of ``annuity`` - whether the sums representing the capital value of the annual payments made to the assessee under the five trust deeds executed by him constituted part of the net wealth of the assessee - Held, no - assessee could claim exemption from including the capitalised value of these payments in his net wealth for the purpose of levying wealth-tax
-
1969 (9) TMI 18
Whether the penalty leviable within the meaning of section 271(1)(a)(i) shall be with reference to the gross tax as reduced by the advance tax and self-assessment-tax under section 140A and remaining due and payable, at the date of final assessment - Held, yes
-
1969 (9) TMI 17
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no capital gains could arise under section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, out of the transfer by the firm of its assets and goodwill to the two private limited companies - question is answered in affirmative and in favour of the assessee
-
1969 (9) TMI 16
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders passed under section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as it stood after its amendment by the Finance Act, 1955, were orders of assessment and, therefore, subject to limitation prescribed under section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 - Held, no
-
1969 (9) TMI 15
Whether section 277 of the Act is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution - held that this section is complete by itself and different from section 271(1)(c) - therefore, section 277 is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution
-
1969 (9) TMI 14
Assessee went to Thailand - compensation given by Thiland govt. to assessee against assets - such amoutn represents the accumulated profits - therefore sum was assessable to tax u/s 4(1)(b)(iii), being the accumulated profits of the assessee's business in Thailand
-
1969 (9) TMI 13
Whether any registered deed of transfer is necessary for blending the separate immovable properties of a coparcener with the coparcenary properties - question is answered in the negative, and in favour of the assessee
-
1969 (9) TMI 12
Concealment of income - penalty notice under section 28(1)(c) ... ... ... ... ..... 949. These penalty proceedings dragged on for a period of 14 years up to April, 1963. Some of the notices are under section 16 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The first notice was issued as far back as October 5, 1949. The counter-affidavit does not explain why proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the Act could not be completed during this interval of 14 years from 1949 to 1963. We agree with the petitioner that the present penalty proceedings are vexatious, and amount to an abuse of the power conferred on the Income-tax Officer under section 28(1)(c) of the Act. The respondent should not be permitted to continue with these penalty proceedings. The petition is allowed with costs. We quash the various notices that have been issued by the respondent under section 28(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 16 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. We direct the respondent to drop these penalty proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Excess Profits Tax Act.
-
1969 (9) TMI 11
Whether assessment filed voluntary after twelve years barred by limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Commissioner of Income-tax. The petitioner has made out her point that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to pass an assessment order in the year 1966 for the assessment year 1953-54. In view of these circumstances, we need not throw out these writ petitions on the short ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy. As discussed above, the assessment orders dated April 1, 1966, were barred by limitation and are, therefore, invalid. It follows that the notices demanding various sums from the four petitioners on the strength of these assessment orders are also invalid. These orders may be quashed. The four connected writ petitions are allowed. We quash the four assessment orders dated April 1, 1966. The opposite parties are directed not to make any demand against the four petitioners on the basis of the four assessment orders dated April 1, 1966. In each case the petitioner shall receive a sum of Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred only) as costs from respondent No. 1.
-
1969 (9) TMI 10
Sum paid by the assessee to the managing agents for the termination of their managing agency - not an admissible expenditure u/s 10(2)(xv)
|