Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1978 1978 (11) 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 141 to 145 of 145 Records

• 1978 (11) TMI 5 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hey had been subjected to pay a penalty of Rs. 4,409 to the I.T. Department, as stated by them in their petition dated May 15, 1971, there appears to be no justification that the opposite parties should have been let off only with a fine of Rs. 214 each for both the offences under ss. 276(b) and 276(d) of the Act. Considering these circumstances, which, in our opinion, are not such as can be ignored, we feel that the punishment awarded by the learned Munsif-Magistrate, is far too low to be deemed reasonable. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the sentence requires interference. We, accordingly, enhance the sentence of fine to Rs. 2,000 (two thousand) against each of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 in the circumstances mentioned above. The period of imprisonment of fifteen days in default in each case will remain as it is. We, however, do not think it necessary to interfere with the sentence passed against opposite party No. 3. The application, is accordingly, allowed.

  ---

• 1978 (11) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal To AAC, Business Income, Deduction, Income From House Property

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... case of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (P.) Ltd. delivered by a Division Bench of this court on July 27, 1978-since reported in 1978 115 ITR 688 (Cal). So far as the third question is concerned, this is also covered by decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Bejoy Kumar Almal 1977 106 ITR 743 (Cal). Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. 1 We answer the same in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 Following the decision of the case of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (P) Ltd. 1978 115 ITR 688 (Cal), we remand the matter to be disposed of by the AAC in accordance with the principles laid down in the said decision. In particular, it is to be considered whether the assessee is denying its liability to pay any interest at all.. If this is so, then the matter has to be considered further. If not, and the dispute is as to the quantum or calculation of the interest charged, then the appeal should be reject.

  ---

• 1978 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  There was a total disruption of the family and on the same day the separated members of the family constituted a partnership firm - ITO held that the entire sum of Rs. 24,252, representing the sale proceeds of the three trucks, should be deemed to be profits of the previous year by virtue of the second prov. to s. 10(2)(vii) - depreciation allowed to the family cannot be regarded as depreciation allowed to the appellant so second prov. to s. 10(2)(vii) not attracted

  ---

• 1978 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the sum of Rs. 74,448.20 being the actual value of raw material received from German collaborators free of cost represented revenue receipt - Whether the amount of Rs. 74,448 being the actual value of raw material received free of cost from German collaborators was rightly debited at that value to the revenue account - dismiss the appeal and answer the questions referred by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

  ---

• 1978 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether a gift to dharmada is void on grounds of vagueness or uncertainty ?

  Whether because of the compulsory nature of the levy the impugned amounts charged to the customers and received by the assessee could be regarded as a part of the price or a surcharge on the price as contended by the counsel for the revenue ?

  Held that:- A gift to dharmada or dharmadaya both in common parlance as well as by the customary meaning attached thereto among the commercial and trading community cannot be regarded as void or invalid on account of vagueness or uncertainty, and it is, therefore, clear that when the customers or brokers paid the impugned amounts to the assessee earmarking them for dharmada it must be held that these payments were validly earmarked for charitable purposes. Thus right from inception these amounts were received and held by the assessee under an obligation to spend the same for charitable purposes only, with the result that these receipts cannot be regarded as forming any income of the assessee.

  It is true that without payment of dharmada amount the customer may not be able to purchase the goods from the assessee but that would not make the payment of dharmada amount involuntary inasmuch as it is out of his own volition that he purchases yarn and cotton from the assessee. The dharmada amount is, therefore, clearly not a part of the price, but a payment for the specific purpose of being spent on charitable purposes. It is true that the assessee did not keep these amounts in a separate bank account but admittedly a separate dharmada account was maintained in the books in which every receipt was credited and payment made thereout on charity was debited and the High Court has clearly found that these amounts were never credited in the trading account nor were carried to the profit and loss statement. Having regard to this position, it seems to us clear that the Tribunal's finding that no trust could be said to have been created by the customers in respect of the impugned amounts will have to be regarded as erroneous. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

1 ....45678