Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1974 1974 (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 61 to 73 of 73 Records

• 1974 (12) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Adventure In The Nature Of Trade, Business Income, Capital Gains

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ld that the mere fact that the assessee succeeded in obtaining enhanced value of their land due to future development of that area or subsequent rise in the price of land on account of influx of refugees or some activities carried on over the land, would not in law be sufficient to treat the income as accruing from business. The surplus realised by the assessee was capital gain. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in taking the view that the transaction of sale and purchase of the land was an adventure in the nature of trade. Our answer to the question referred by the Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is that surpluses realised by the assessee on the sale of land were capital gains and not income or profits from an adventure in the nature of trade within the meaning of section 2(4) of the Act of 1922 and was thus not chargeable to tax under the head business in the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. The assessee will get costs of Rs. 300.

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... under section 28. Under it there is no power of making direction of the kind the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has done in the present case. In the next place, the Income-tax Officer cannot, in law, proceed for imposition of penalty under section 28(1)(c) merely because the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gives a direction in this regard. If in law he did not have any jurisdiction to take any further action he cannot validly take such action. The direction in the appellate order that the Income-tax Officer should take such action according to law as he deems necessary in this case might have confused the situation. The Income-tax Officer was bound to take some action in accordance with the appellate direction. For this reason also the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the direction. Our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee shall get his costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t case is not one where the assessee had no power of disposal over the various items of property gifted by him since they are not the properties of any joint family and it was nobody s case that he could not make a valid gift of the items shown in the Schedule to the settlement deed. Therefore, that decision has absolutely no application at all to the facts of this case. The donor made a transfer of his interest in the existing movable property which included medicines, furniture and other items then valued at Rs. 15,000 to his grandsons who have since come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased assessee. Therefore, in view of the meanings given to the expression gift , transfer of property , and property in the Gift-tax Act, we have no hesitation in holding that the gift in question is a gift in praesenti and not in futuro. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the department. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Act Of 1922, Act Of 1961, Actual Cost, Assessment Year, Written Down Value

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ainst absurd construction and should also, if necessary, in order to give effect to the legislative intent, supply an omitted word. While we are in agreement with the propositions as advanced by learned counsel for the assessee, we are unable to accept the position that in this case any absurdity would result as indicated before or the legislative intent would be defeated if the plain meaning of the expression actual cost or written down value as contemplated by the 1961 Act be given effect to. The view we have taken is in consonance in our opinion with the principles enunciated in the case of Maharajah of Pithapuram v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1945 13 ITR 221 (PC) and the decision of this court in the case of Reliance Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1972 86 ITR 570 (Cal). In the view that we have taken the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. PYNE J.--I agree.

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Company In Which Public Are Substantially Interested, Penal Provisions, Strict Construction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... but is penal in nature as has been held by the Supreme Court. Therefore, this expression must receive strict construction. We are aware of the fact that this construction leads to certain amount of anomaly and absurdity. It will be a strange thing to say that sister-in-law or daughter-in-law would not be related to each other. But we have to find out the meaning given in the section. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that on this aspect of the matter counsel for the assessee is right and if Smt. Sushila Devi Goenka s shares go out and if Smt. Sushila Devi Goenka is considered to be another individual, then the position becomes different. Therefore, the mischief of the section cannot be applied to this company. In the aforesaid view of the matter we answer each of the questions for the three years in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Mistake Apparent From Record, Retrospective Effect

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... urpose of business of the undertaking and that reserve account is prohibited from being used for payment of dividends or remittance of profits outside India. In this context, it is doubtful, whether the expression reserve account should be construed as reserve for an unspecified contingency, as in the other cases. As mentioned before, we are concerned with the withdrawal of the development rebate already allowed and that withdrawal is dependent on the happening of the two contingencies, as mentioned in section 34(3) and section 155(5) of the Act, that is to say, if the money has been utilised for payment of dividends to shareholders, which fact has been negatived by the Tribunal or, secondly, remittance of profits outside India, which is not the fact in the instant case. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the correct conclusion. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each party to pay and bear its own costs. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure, Double Taxation Relief, Enduring Benefit, Provision For Relief, Question Of Fact, Relief From Double Taxation, Tax Deducted

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Advance Tax, Income Tax Act, Mens Rea

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of the Tribunal on this basis. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. S. Guruswami Gounder and K. S. Krishnaraju 1973 92 ITR 90 (Mad) and the decision in the case of M. P. Alexander and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1973 92 ITR 92 (Ker) (Appendix). Facts of those cases were entirely different. In this connection, reliance may be placed in support of our conclusion on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of V. D. Rajarathnam v. Commissioner of Income-tax and also on the decision of this court in the case of Gopendra Krishna Saha v. Commissioner of Income-tax in I.T. Ref. No. 184 of 1969, judgment delivered on 27th September, 1974 (since reported in 1978 113 ITR 421 (Cal) (Appendix No. 2)). In the aforesaid view of the matter, question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Each partly will pay and bear its own costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Business Income, Income From Business, Law And Fact, Mixed Question, Question Of Law, Set Off, Unabsorbed Depreciation

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s well as the fact that quite a few sales were not recorded with identifiable details, have not been disputed even in the course of arguments before us. The main contention of Mr. Advani, both before us as well as before the Tribunal, was that having regard to the nature and magnitude of the business of the assessee-firm, it was not possible at all for the assessee-firm to maintain stock tallies or to record its sales with identifiable details, but that contention must be held to have been negatived by the Tribunal, by necessary implication. Having regard to these findings of the Tribunal which are conclusive and binding upon us, the present reference must be answered against the assessee-firm. S. K. DESAI J.-I agree and have nothing to add. By the Court The questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1.--In the affirmative. Question No. 2.--Unnecessary in view of the answer to question No. 1. The assessee must pay the Commissioner s costs of the reference.

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 3 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Advance Tax, Income Tax Act, Mens Rea

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rary view. In view of non-existence of any assets and the vagueness of the so-called attempts of the board of directors of March Private Ltd. to restart business, in my opinion the view taken by the Tribunal is not only not perverse, but is a reasonable and a correct view. I would, therefore, answer questions Nos. 2 and 3 also against the assessee. Per S. K. DESAI.-I agree and have nothing to add. BY THE COURT.-The questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 The Tribunal did not err in law or act without evidence or contrary to the evidence on record in not allowing the item of Rs. 4,996 as a bad debt under the section referred to in the said question. Question No. 2 In the affirmative. Question No. 3 The Tribunal did not err in law or act without evidence or contrary to the evidence on record in not allowing the sum of Rs. 62,078 as a bad debt under the section mentioned in the said question. Assessee should pay the Commissioner s costs of the reference.

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 2 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ion (1), the Government may, in the case of a widow who is entitled to such maintenance allowance continue to pay to her out of the Consolidated Fund of the State the whole or any part of the maintenance allowance during her lifetime even after the full compensation and rehabilitation grant payable under this Act have been paid to the jagirdar. We have not been shown that the sons of the assessee were entitled to any maintenance or were receiving any independent maintenance. The assessee has merely said that this amount is the joint Hindu family property of himself and his sons and from this declaration it is easy to infer the intention of the assessee that he has impressed the compensation and other assets included in the returns with the character of undivided joint Hindu family property. No other point was pressed. In the result, we are of the opinion that the question formulated by this court must be answered in favour of the assessees. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1974 (12) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Double Taxation Relief

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ns, conclude the point that profit accrued at the place or income accrued at the place where computation was made. In this case, the assessee pointed out that as profit had accrued or income had accrued in Pakistan, it had not disclosed this part of the income. That the entire manufacturing process was done in Pakistan and sales were made in Pakistan go to indicate that the work of managing its affairs which brought in income out of which commission was earned was done in Pakistan. No other fact was established to indicate that any activity of managing the affairs of the managed company was performed in India. In the aforesaid view of the matter and in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion in the instant case. In the premises, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each party will bear and pay its own costs. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree.

  ---

1234