Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (10) 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 61 to 80 of 84 Records

• 1972 (10) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  " 1. Whether, on the facts of the case, there was a 'loan or advance of Rs. 2,55,135 within the meaning of section 12(1B) read with section 2(6A)(e) by the company to the shareholder ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the phrase 'accumulated profits', as used in section 2(6A)(e) means such profits as disclosed by the company's balance-sheet or such disclosed profits subject to adjustments as required by the Income-tax Act ? "

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 23 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceedings for recovery of tax taken against the partnership firm - effect of the letter of the Tax Recovery Officer apportioning the tax payable by the firm among the partners

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  " Whether the hiring by M/s. Pure Products and Madhu Canning Ltd. to the assessee-company of a godown belonging to and used by the former for its business purposes amounted to 'transfer' to the latter within the meaning of the phrase 'the transfer to a new business of building previously used in any other business ' occurring in section 15C(2)(i) ? "

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955 - assessee claimed deduction of certain amounts which had been paid as gratuity to certain employees who had retired under section 5(e) of the Act

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee obtained lease of premises for starting hotel business but the premises were required by the Government of India. Due to this the assessee was not able to commence business - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the compensation received on account of this is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee - assessee was completely prevented from commencing his business of a hotel as a result of the two requisition orders - He never carried on that business until he commenced the same in April, 1947. That he received compensation amounts in September and November, 1947, and March, 1948, does not make any difference to the findings made above - In the result, our answer to the question is in the negative

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Seizure of money by police - whether income-tax officer can seize the same when no cognisable offence made out - if cognisable offence is not made out by the police the person from whom it was seized is the person who is entitled to the seized money. But if the income-tax officer is entitled to seize the amount then he would be the person entitled to it - resulting position is that the Magistrate was wrong in holding that the Customs Officer and the Gold Control Officer are entitled to the possession of the transistor and the jewels in question. I set aside the order of the court below in this respect and direct that the transistor and all the gold articles, other than the primary gold, seized from the petitioners be returned to them. As I have already observed, the order of the lower court regarding the delivery of cash to the income-tax department will stand confirmed

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  The question that arises for consideration in this criminal revision is, who is entitled under section 523, Criminal Procedure Code, to the amount of cash seized from one Mohammed Koya on January 29, 1970 ? – contentin is that Income-tax Officer has no power to seize the amount in court deposit, because he has not found the money as a result of such search as has been contemplated under section 132 of the Income-tax Act - resulting position is that the order of the court below directing refund of the entire amount in court deposit to the V-Income-tax Officer, Madras, is correct, and is hereby upheld. The criminal revision case of Mohammed Kunhi is dismissed.

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the activity carried on by the assessee in preparing articles of food from raw materials, constitutes 'manufacture or processing of goods' within the meaning of section 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act, 1968, and that the assessee is an 'Industrial company' within the meaning of the definition contained in that section

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the revenue. The question that is referred to us for determination is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessments for the years 1955-56, 1957-58 and 1958-59 under section 34(1)(b) of the Act?

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  During the year the assessee-company had an income of Rs. 7,318 in the outstanding creditors' account and this amount was on account of expenses claimed in earlier years. The assessee-company had maintained its accounts on mercantile basis, and even though the amount in fact was not paid, yet as the liability was incurred, it was allowed as expenses incurred in the earlier years. In the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1961-62, the amount was outstanding in the outstanding creditors' account - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 7,318 could be included in the income of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1961-62, under the provisions of section 10(2A) or section 12(5)?"

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 14 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Income-tax Officer passed an assessment order under section 144 in default, estimating the business income of the assessee and treating the assessee as an unregistered firm. Coming to know of this order, the assessee made an application under section 146 for the cancellation of the assessment order and for passing orders afresh, but this application was rejected - When the assessee files the declaration without filing the return of income and assessment is made ex parte whether the assessee-firm is entitled to registration

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 4,38,472 and Rs. 2,27,342 were properly held to be capital profits

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - petitioner is the widow - Whether inclusion of lineal descendants' share in the property passing on the death of coparcener of Mitakshara family is beyond the charging section of Estate Duty Act - whether it violates equality clause and whether it is unconstitutional in respect of article 14 of the Constitution

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Whether proceedings under section 34 for the assessment year 1956-57 were validly initiated against the assessee, Hindu undivided family, and the assessment completed against it within the time-limit applicable to it - This is not a case where no return has been filed by the assessee or that his income has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the proceedings under section 34 were invalid

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the question that is referred for our determination is : "Whether, on the facts of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Wholesale Cloth Dealers' Importers' Group did not form a partnership ?"

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the ship can be said to have been used by the assessee for the purposes of its business at any time during the previous year 1956 - Held, no - purchaser committed default in carrying out its obligations under the contract, the repairs so carried out may be useful to the assessee-company while the ship was being used by it for its business. There is no evidence whatever in the present case to indicate that if in case the purchaser committed default in carrying out. his obligations under the contract, the assessee would have used the ship for its business. It may well enter into another contract for its sale. Even during the period between June 15, 1956, and June 23, 1956, when actually delivery was given, it cannot be regarded that the ship was used passively for the purpose of its business

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case unabsorbed depreciation allowance of the previous years deemed to be part of depreciation allowance of the current year under proviso (b) to section 10(2)(vi) of the Act can be set off against income under other heads? - it is clear that the assessee was entitled to claim a set-off in respect of the unabsorbed part of depreciation of Rs. 6,98,190 against income from interest on securities and capital gains. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Computation of capital gains when an assessee has sold the bonus shares allotted to him - Whether, for the purposes of computation of capital gains, was the assessee entitled to deduct the face value of the bonus shares from their sale value as the 'actual cost' of those shares to the assessee within the meaning of section 12B(2) - correct method of valuing the cost to a person of the bonus shares is to take the cost of the original shares, spread it over the original shares and the bonus shares collectively and find out the average price of all the shares - instead of being a dealer in shares, the same principle will apply if the assessee is an investor in shares. Even in case of an assessee, who was an investor in shares, the capital gain of bonus shares has to be calculated in accordance with the method of valuation laid down by the Supreme Court in Gold Mohore Investment Co. Ltd.'s case

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether Tribunal is right in its view that the CIT had jurisdiction to revise the order of refund - Whether Tribunal is right in its view that the order of refund under s. 48 read with s. 49D is independent and distinct from the assessment order - Whether Tribunal is right in confirming the computation of relief as modified by the Commissioner- Whether Tribunal is right in modifying the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner - Whether Tribunal is right in its interpretation of s. 49D

  ---

• 1972 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Manufacturing Concern - Diversion By Overriding Title - commission paid at a fixed percentage of the net profits as per the agreement between the company and the Government is spent wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business - allowable expenditure

  ---

12345