Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1971 1971 (5) 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 21 to 40 of 52 Records

• 1971 (5) TMI 49
  

  Accounts - To be kept by company, Investigation of company’s affairs in other cases, Power of inspectors to carry investigation into affairs of related companies, Production

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 39
  

  Oppression and Mismanagement

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... heir view that the administrators have not at any time been registered members of the company, the directors were mistaken in omitting to give notice of meetings of the company to the administrators. If this could be regarded as an act of oppression, which in our opinion it cannot, it would not, we think, justify an order that one side should buy the shares of the other. So drastic a remedy would go far beyond what is necessary to put an end to this particular form of oppression. In this court no reliance has been placed on the change of the company s registered office. For these reasons we are unable to agree with Pennycuick J. in thinking that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this matter. In these circum stances it is unnecessary to consider the extremely elaborate order which he made, no doubt in part at the invitation of the parties. On analysis it produces some startling results, particularly in its fiscal effects. We allow this appeal and dismiss the petition.

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 30
  

  Failure to file estimates of advance tax for an assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962 - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be rightly held that no penalty can be levied on the assessee under section 273(b) of the Act of 1961 for the assessment year under appeal for a default under section 18A(3) of the Act of 1922 ? " - Having regard to the foregoing discussion our answer to the question referred to us is that penalty under section 18A(9) can be imposed under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year under appeal before the Tribunal.

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 29
  

  Proceedings initiated under section 34(1)(b) - legality and validity - officer who made the original assessment had full knowledge of the relevant information or facts. The interpretation by the subsequent officer of the existing material amounts only to a change of opinion - it is wellsettled that a mere change of opinion does not constitute information within the meaning of section 34(1)(b). The Income-tax Officer who purported to reopen the assessments did not, therefore, have any information within the meaning of section 34(1)(b) in his, possession, and he, therefore, could not exercise any power or jurisdiction under section 34(1)(b) to reopen the assessments already made. The, reopening of the assessments of the assessee already concluded was, therefore, illegal and not validly done

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 28
  

  Whether the interest earned by the wife and minor son of the assessee on the credits standing in their names is income which accrued to them directly or indirectly because of their membership or admission to the benefits of the firm, Messrs. Laljimal Tika Ram, in which the assessee is a partner – Whether the interest income earned by Kasturi Devi and Ram Gopal were liable to be included in the assessment of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(i) and 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 27
  

  Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO who had made the original assessment had not committed any glaring and obvious mistake of law while granting relief under section 49D (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that accordingly the provisions of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the case - If the issue is capable of two views, then it is not a mistake that could be rectified. In the present case, there was scope for argument. Therefore, it cannot be rectified under section 154.- further, rectification order is an appealable one - when issue is not raised before the Tribunal, High Court cannot consider the same – issue decided in favour of assessee

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 26
  

  Reopening of assessment – original assessment was completed accepting the assessee's explanation - ITO has no power to compel the assessee to furnish the particulars or to ask him to show cause why the assessment should not be reopened - Income-tax Officer has a right to issue the notice. But, the Income-tax Officer, however, has no right to compel the assessee to act in compliance with the notice

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 25
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the surplus amounting to Rs. 1,01,854 arising from the sale of the fireclay rights was taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 – purchase and sale of fireclay rights were purchase and sale of the assessee and were incidental to the purchase and sale of coal mines. Both the coal mine and the fireclay rights were purchased for the purpose of resale – therefore, Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is in the affirmative and in favour of the department

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 24
  

  Mysore Agricultural Income Tax Act - whether the provisions of section 12(e) and (g) read with section 3(2) of the Act are applicable in the matter of assessment to super-tax under Chapter VII-A of the Act – held that, provisions relating to exemption and grant of rebate on insurance premia and donations under s. 3(2) and s. 12 apply to the assessment of super-tax

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 23
  

  Carried forward and set-off of loss in the sales of an asset - As the loss of the assessee relating to the year 1951-52 cannot be called as loss under the head "capital gains" even as per the law as stood in 1958-59, it cannot be carried forward and set off against capital gains of the year 1956 onwards - Whether evidence of market value is necessary to determine the market value of property acquired for the purpose of capital gains – held that in the circumstances of the case, the capital gain of the assessee could not be calculated on the basis of the third proviso to section 12B(2)

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 22
  

  Ordinarily, an assessee maintaining his accounts on the mercantile system is entitled to deduction only if the appropriate debit entry has been made in the account. But that, it seems to us, is not an absolute rule. The liability arose by virtue of section 144 of the Code, and we do not see why it should be taken as not having accrued merely because of the omission of the assessee to enter the liability in its account books. The liability arose because of the operation of law. It could not be denied merely because it was not entered in the accounts. Its existence did not depend upon entries being made in the assessee's books. The omission of the assessee to make the entries in its books merely rendered the accounts inaccurate. We are in agreement with the Appellate Tribunal that the absence of entries in the account books cannot deprive the assessee of his right to the deduction.

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 21
  

  The assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of plying motor vehicles on certain routes. In the assessment proceedings for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 it claimed a deduction of Rs. 11,681 an Rs. 29,712, respectively, on account of fees paid to its lawyers for representing its case before the State Transport Authority and also in certain writ petitions before the High Court. The assessee contended in that litigation that permits should not be granted to other private carriers on the routes assigned to the assessee. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed Rs. 5,000 as a deduction for the assessment year 1958-59 and Rs. 25,000 for the assessment year 1959-60. - Held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee over the fees paid to its lawyers for representing its case before the State Transport Authority and in the writ petitions before the High Court must be held to be admissible revenue expenditure.

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 20
  

  Applicability of section 49D of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the matter of granting relief to the assessee in respect of the dividend received by the assessee on its investment in shares in joint stock companies in England

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 19
  

  Partial partition of HUF after the relevant previous year - Whether the assessment was validly made on the assessee in the status of a Hindu undivided - Whether there was material for coming to the conclusion that Rs. 2,33,414 out of the capital of Rs. 3,33,414 credited in the books of account of the assessee represented income from undisclosed sources

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 18
  

  Income Escaping Assessment - jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue the impugned notices under section 147 - reason to believe

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 17
  

  Income from house property of firm – whether it is assessable in hands of firm or in hands of partners

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 16
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - unilateral declaration of a Hindu coparcener threw his individual property into common stock of joint family - transfer of property – taxability as gift

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 15
  

  Dissolution of firm – reassessment proceedings against successor - validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... heard. As the notices had not been issued in order to give effect to a finding or direction contained in an order passed by any authority in any proceeding under the Act by way of appeal, reference or revision, the revenue cannot claim that the limitation as provided in section 149 of the Act is not applicable in view of the provisions of section 150 of the Act. In this view of the matter the two notices issued to the petitioner much beyond the time limit prescribed by section 149 of the Act are wholly without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. The petitioner also raised a question about the validity of section 150 of the Act, but in the view which we have taken it is not necessary to go into that question. In the result, we allow both the writ petitions with costs and quash the two notices dated 3rd December, 1968, issued by the Income-tax Officer to the petitioner under section 148 of the Act in respect of the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Petitions allowed.

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 14
  

  Reassessment - revised return discloses higher profits or income than what was disclosed in the earlier return - notice under section 147 cannot be challenged by assessee on the ground that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notice

  ---

• 1971 (5) TMI 13
  

  Powers Of Commissioner - notice issued by an Additional Commimioner of Income-tax to the petitioner revising an order made by the Income-tax Officer in purported exercise of the power of the Additional Commissioner under section 263

  ---

123