Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1980 1980 (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 161 to 164 of 164 Records

• 1980 (10) TMI 4
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tead of deciding the appeal against penalty should have adjourned it and heard it along with the appeal of the department against the order of the AAC setting aside the assessment. This question was not raised before the Tribunal at the time when the appeal against the penalty was heard. The question cannot, therefore, be said to arise out of the Tribunal s order. The application is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

  ---

• 1980 (10) TMI 3
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... bserved as follows (at p.1156) We are, therefore, of opinion that merely because Pallaniappa s father made the will and Pallaniappa, probably as a dutiful son, took out probate and carried out the wishes of his father, the nature of the property could not change and it will be joint family property in the hands of Pallaniappa so far as his male issues are concerned. The circumstances of that case are more or less similar to those that exist in the present case. Even if Arjun Singh made an invalid gift of the property which Gurprit Singh took as a dutiful son, nevertheless the son of Gurprit Singh would acquire an interest by birth in the said property which would, therefore, continue to be a HUF property and does not become the individual property of Gurprit Singh. In the circumstances, I concur with S. Ranganathan J., that the answer to the question referred has to be in the negative and in favour of the assessee. I would, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1980 (10) TMI 2
  

  Concealment, Penalty, Reference, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... er of the Appellate Tribunal on the question of liability of the assessees for penalty under s. 18(1)(c) of the W.T. Act. The Tribunal in essence held that the difference in computation of wealth as shown in the return and as finally determined was due to the fact that the break-up value of the shares of the assessees in Jaora Sugar Mills had been calculated after making allowance for certain liabilities. The Tribunal observed that whether the liabilities were contingent or certain was a tricky question of law and related to the interpretation of certain statutes and, therefore, the calculation made by the assessees at a lower figure did not indicate concealment of particulars of wealth. This basic finding was a finding of fact on which the penalties had been cancelled. The proposed questions are, therefore, questions of fact and a reference under s. 27(2) of the Wealth-tax Act is not competent. The applications are, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1980 (10) TMI 1
  

  Limitation, Penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... this court and, as directed by this court, the aforesaid question of law has been referred by the Tribunal to this court for its opinion. Learned counsel for the parties conceded that the answer to the question referred to us is covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Fakirchand Dayaram (MCC No. 256 of 1976, decided on 7th February, 1980-( 1983 143 ITR 184 (MP)). Section 275 of the Act, which provides for the period of limitation for imposing a penalty, was amended with effect from 1st April, 1971. In M.C.C. No. 256 of 1976, it was held that (p. 185) if in a particular proceeding the period of limitation was still running on 1st April, 1971, the amended provision enlarging the period of limitation would apply . In view of that decision, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and against the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.

  ---

1 ....56789