Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1979 1979 (3) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 146 of 146 Records
-
1979 (3) TMI 6
Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... 254(2) to afford a reasonable opportunity to both the parties before it, before making any amendment to its original order. Such a practice would be conducive to the quasi-judicial nature of its proceedings and also it would avoid unnecessary feeling that the concerned party was not heard before any order of amendment has been passed. It would be salutary for the Tribunal to follow such procedure in future. We have no hesitation, on a consideration of the provisions of s. 254(2), to hold that the Appellate Tribunal has ample power and jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the same is not liable to be quashed on the ground that it is violative of any rule of natural justice. We may add that no other ground has been specifically taken by the applicant in the writ petition in attacking the validity of the impugned order. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (3) TMI 5
Estate Duty, Exemptions, Residential House Property ... ... ... ... ..... eceased in the coparcenary property including the residential house has to be aggregated under s. 34(1)(c) without any reference to any exemption under s. 33(1)(n). In view of the above decisions, we have to hold that the exemption provided in s. 33(1)(n) can only be in relation to the share of the deceased. As regards the question as to the aggregation of the value of the interest of the lineal descendants for rate purposes, this Court in V. Devaki Ammal v. Asst. CED 1973 91 ITR 24 (Mad), has struck down s. 34(1)(c) as violative of art. 14 of the Constitution of India and that matter has been taken in appeal to the Supreme Court and that is pending. Therefore, without answering the question referred, we direct the Tribunal to re-hear the appeal in the light of the principles set out above and in the light of the principles to be laid down by the Supreme Court in the appeal arising out of the decision of this court in Devaki Ammal s case 1973 91 ITR 24. No order as to costs.
-
1979 (3) TMI 4
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... f attachment, it will be in the interest of justice fit and proper that the TRO be directed to do his duty to refund the surplus money to the defaulter. In view of the existence of the order of attachment, he cannot in fact refund the money to the defaulter. In our opinion, the TRO would comply with the requirement of the statutory duty of refunding the surplus money to the defaulter, if he transmits the money to the court of the learned II Additional Civil Judge, DehraDun, which passed the order of attachment. The money will be subject to further orders of the court where the suit is pending. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to forthwith transmit the balance of the sale proceeds to the court of II Additional Civil Judge, DehraDun, in compliance with the order of attachment passed by that court in suit No. 44 of 1973, (S. K. Pahawa v. N. N. Samanta). In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1979 (3) TMI 3
In view of the finding recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that it was clear on the appraisal of the entire material on the record that Shrimati Janak Rani was partner of the assessee-firm and that the firm was a genuine firm, we do not see how the assessee can be prosecuted for filing false returns - appeal allowed - production is quashed
-
1979 (3) TMI 2
Assessee is a private limited company formed for taking over some of the assets and liabilities of a predecessor firm. The said firm was carrying on business in wholesale in liquor. It was also the sole selling agents - royalty payable for the sole selling agency is of capital nature and not deductible as business expenditure
-
1979 (3) TMI 1
Net Wealth - Family Arrangement - assessee succeeded in wiping off her liability to the extent of ₹ 11,00,000 by transfer of war stock. The balance of the liability, i.e., ₹ 19,00,000, remained due and continued to be due on all the three valuation dates - Whether the sum of ₹ 19 lakhs could constitute a debt owed by the assessee and deductible under the W.T. Act from the value of the total assets as on December 31, 1959 - Held, yes
....
|
|