Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1971 1971 (12) 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 81 Records

• 1971 (12) TMI 41 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Interest From Firm

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... stment in the firm, independent of the capital contributed by K. Venkataratnam as a partner. Therefore, it did not cease to have the characteristics of a capital investment by a partner, the interest on which cannot be allowed to be deducted from the income of the firm under section 40(b) of the Act. By the mere trick of opening two accounts, one in the name of the joint family of K. Venkataratnam and another in the name of K. Venkataratnam as a partner, and transferring the capital investment to the joint family account, it cannot be contended that what was once capital has become now the investment made by the joint family. We, therefore, find that the Income-tax Officer was right in adding the interest on these items to the income of the firm, as the deductions claimed are not allowable under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the result, the reference is answered in favour of the department. The assessee will pay costs to the department. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 40 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Association Of Persons, Body Of Individuals, Ejusdem Generis

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the business it might perhaps have been possible to argue that while the building was gifted by the ladies as individuals, the business was gifted by them as a body of individuals. That, however, was not the position. In the present case, the three individuals have a common interest in the businesses. The businesses are carried on for the benefit of all of them. They cannot constitute an association of persons because two of them are minors and their guardian is herself the third person of the combination and there is, therefore, none who can agree on their behalf with the third person. But, though the businesses are not carried on pursuant to a common design, they are carried on for their common benefit by one of them representing all of them. The three individuals, in our opinion, clearly constitute a body of individuals. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the department. The assessee will pay the costs of the reference. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 39 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, Passing Of Property, Subject Matter

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n the application of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal presumed that there must have been an application by the assessee and that the Income-tax Officer must have extended the time for filing the return. The Tribunal thought that it was justified in drawing such a presumption as the correct state of facts was not clear from the records of the case which were available to them. We cannot say that the Tribunal erred in drawing such an inference. Illustration (e) to section 114 of the Evidence Act authorises the drawing of a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. Since interest was not chargeable unless time had been extended, the Tribunal was justified in holding that time must have been extended on the application of the assessee. Accepting that finding we agree with the Tribunal that penalty was not leviable. The questions referred to us are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 38 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  HUF, Partition, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... entatively to deliver possession to the plaintiff in the suit of the properties mentioned in the schedule, fetching a rent equal to 1/4th share. To this memo, in reply the plaintiff had filed memo accepting the arrangement therein she states that this selection shall continue till final decree in the suit is passed and shall be without prejudice to the contentions of either side . This shows that this was purely a temporary arrangement that they had come to and the actual final decree giving her the rights in the property was passed only on March 16, 1961. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a partition among the members in definite portions. This arrangement certainly would not have given her a right to alienate even her interest in the property, which she would otherwise be able to, in case there was a decree in her favour. We, therefore, hold that there was partition only on March 16, l961, as held by the Tribunal. This reference is answered accordingly. No costs.

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 37 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Bad Debt, Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nt that if it is an expenditure incurred in respect of its business, it should have been claimed during the relevant assessment year and this obviously has not been done and if it is claimed as a bad debt, it should be debt advanced in respect of the trade or business of the assessee. In A. V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1963 48 ITR 67 (SC), it was pointed out that a loan to be treated as a debt and the same to be allowed as deduction under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Act, it should be a debt, which, if good, would have swelled the taxable profits of the assessee. In this case it is obviously not a debt of that type as the recovery of that debt would not in any way go to swell the taxable profits of the assessee. Therefore, it is not a trade debt or a business debt as such and no deduction can be claimed with regard to the same. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in disallowing this claim. This question is, therefore, answered against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 36 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  " 1. Whether, when the due date for compliance with the notice under section 139(2), falls within the due date for compliance with the provisions of section 139(1), the notice issued under section 139(2) is illegal ? 2. Whether non-compliance with the provisions of section 139(2), constitutes sufficient cause for exoneration from levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a)?

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 35 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Law Applicable - proceeding for the levy of penalty under section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of an estimate of the advance tax payable by the assessee for the assessment year 1961-62 - family was disrupted prior to coming into force of 1961 Act and the assessment was completed after 1961 Act - whether penalty can be levied under the new act

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 34 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee’s father, Kolappa Pillai, purchased from the Maharajah of Travancore on 18th August, 1956, a landed property known as Singarathope having an extent of a little over 9 acres situated within the municipal limits of Trivandrum town for Rs. 34,500, including registration expenses - Whether sale of agricultural land in town as building sites results in capital gains - It cannot be held that the property cease to be agricultural by the mere intention of the assessee to convert it into housing sites - Tribunal was right in not treating the land in question as a capital asset and also in holding that the income derived by the sale of the land was not assessable as capital gains.

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 33 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the entire remuneration to the directors as an admissible deduction for the purpose of assessment under the Income-tax Act?” - In the present case the facts and circumstances did not suggest that there was any extra commercial consideration. Therefore, the entire remuneration must be considered to have been spent wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee's business

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - sole proprietor converts his business into partnership concern with the entire capital being contributed by the assessee - whether the shares given to partnership including goodwill amounts to gift - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gift was exempt under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 31 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty proceedings by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were valid under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " - Whether an Appellate Assistant Commissioner is empowered to levy penalty while confirming the additions made by the Income-tax Officer?

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 30 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  " Whether the proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) had been validly commenced within the meaning of section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " - In our opinion, the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c), in the present case, was validly commenced, and inasmuch as section 275 does not deal with the question as to when such proceeding can be considered to commence, no question arises of applying that provision.

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  If the Income-tax Officer does not issue necessary notices, whether the proceedings would be valid - Whether the proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) had been validly commenced against the assessee - Whether proceedings for imposition of the penalty have been commenced validly and within the time limit, if any, prescribed by the Income-tax Act, 1961 - question is answered in favour of the revenue

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that section 10 of the Estate Duty Act is not attracted in respect of the shares of the sons of the deceased ? "- " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the. Tribunal had sufficient material to hold that the value of the arecanut plantation has to be deleted from the principal value of the estate ? "

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that, (1) proposed dividends, (2) provision for taxation, (3) credit balance of profit and loss account, (4) depreciation reserve (being excess of book depreciation over depreciation allowed in the income-tax assessment) represented 'reserves' and were to be included in the computation of capital under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  This is a special appeal against the judgment dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging a notice dated September 14, 1961, issued under section 34(1)(a) - Whether the reassessment notice for the assessment year 1946-47 served on 16th September, 1961 is saved by s. 34(4)?

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  (1) Whether, the receipt of maintenance allowance by the assessee from her husband was rightly held to be exempt u/s 4(3)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? - (2) If the answer to question No. (1) be in the negative, then, whether the entire receipt by the assessee was taxable when the agreement to live apart make provision for maintenance of the respondent as well as her two sons ?" - no exemption under s. 4(3)(vii) could be claimed. The receipts were for the maintenance of the assessee and her two children. The fact that she received the entire amount does not make this whole amount taxable in her hand - It was the assessee's obligation to maintain her two minor children. The mere act of receiving money on behalf of the children does not make the entire amount taxable in her hands

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 – Whether the properties (other than the residential house) gifted by the deceased to his children under the gift deed dated April 9, 1956, can be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased by virtue of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and if so, to what extent – Whether the nursing home building gifted by the deceased to his son under the deed dated April 9, 1956, can be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased by virtue of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and if so, to what extent

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the sum of Rs. 77,238 on account of the value of shares held by the deceased in the name of his wife, in the principle value of the estate passing on his death, is justified in law - such properties passed on his death and their value will be liable to duty under section 5(1) of Estate Duty Act

  ---

• 1971 (12) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 35 of the Act for each assessment year pointing out that there was an error apparent on the record which called for rectification. It appears that having regard to the amount of dividend distributed by the assessee in the respective previous years, the super-tax rebate should have been reduced. As that had not been done, the super-tax payable by the assessee had been under-charged - omission to give effect to the provisions of Finance Acts, 1958 and 1959 was a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the rectification proceedings were valid - Appeal dismissed

  ---

12345