Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1984 1984 (6) 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 201 to 206 of 206 Records

• 1984 (6) TMI 6
  

  Agricultural Income Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ions of various High Courts Raja Yuvaraj Dutt Singh v. Deputy Commissioner 1970 78 ITR 252 (SC), General Commercial Corporation Private Ltd. v. Second Additional Income-tax Officer 1960 40 ITR 506 (Mad), Lal Bhan Pratap Narain Bahadur Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1962 46 ITR 247 (All), Arunadevi Janodia v. Collector of Madras 1952 21 ITR 349 (Mad), C. M George v. Income-tax Officer 1958 33 ITR 22 (Mad), Kashiram Agarwalla v. Collector of 24 Parganas 1958 33 ITR 800 (Cal), Mohammed v. Collector of Calicut 1966 KLT 224. It is too late in the day to contend to the contrary. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, hold that the proceedings for recovery were commenced in this case within the period permitted under section 41(4) of the Act. There is thus no bar of limitation for recovery in this case. Exhibit P-4 is valid and legal. No other ground was urged impugning exhibit P-4. The original petition is without merit. It is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1984 (6) TMI 5
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... lenged in an appeal. The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed on January 27, 1976, and the penalty proceeding was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the same day, but the penalty was levied on April 18, 1979, i.e., after the amendment to section 274(2) of the Act came into force and, therefore, the assessment order was without authority. The Tribunal has followed the judgment of this court in R Abdul Azeez v. CIT 1981 128 ITR 547. There is no dispute that the question referred to this court is also covered by the decision in R Abdul Azeez s case. Following the said decision, we, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Department. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Order on oral application--It is stated that the decision of Abdul Azeezs case 1981 128 ITR 547 is pending consideration before the Supreme Court upon certificate granted by this court We, therefore, grant a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.

  ---

• 1984 (6) TMI 4
  

  Agricultural Income Tax, Best Judgment Assessment, Estimated Income, Findings In Prior Years

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... using through Exhibit P-1 assessment order, I am unable to accept the plea that the order of assessment is so unreasonable or arbitrary as to transgress the limits imposed by law. It is settled law, that in making an estimate or best judgment assessment, it is the decision of the assessing authority that is crucial. It has not been shown that the estimate made by the Agricultural Income -tax Officer is not in accordance with law. Be that as it may, the quantum fixed on such estimate is a pure question of fact. The Appellate Authority as well as the revisional authority considered the matter in detail. It is not for this court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to conduct an enquiry with regard to the quantum and make its own estimate in the matter. This being a pure question of fact, the petitioner s contention should fail. The original petition is without force. It is dismissed with costs including advocate s fee 250.

  ---

• 1984 (6) TMI 3
  

  Agricultural Income Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s specified in them shall be treated as confidential and the second part, save as provided in the Act, debars the court from requiring any public servant to produce the records or any part of them in court. Therefore, besides directing the records to be treated as confidential, the sub-section imposes a ban upon the public servant against producing them or any part of them in court. On a fair and reasonable reading of section 54(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, in the light of the decisions in Charu Chandra Kundu s case 1961 43 ITR 83 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxmichand Narayandas 1962 44 ITR 548 (SC) and Sankaranarayana Bhatta s case 1977 KLT 583, I hold that the first respondent was justified in passing exhibits P-2 and P-5 orders. The petitioner is not entitled to get certified copies of the returns filed by his brother, 3rd respondent, for the years 1969 to 1981. The original petition is without merit. It is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1984 (6) TMI 2
  

  Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... .e., Exhibit P-3 guidelines, issued by the Board of Revenue, does not seem to have been borne in mind by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The estimate in the circumstances is arbitrary. It cannot be sustained. I quash Exhibit P-2 order passed in revision by the 2nd respondent. Respondent No. 2 is directed to restore A.I.T.R.P. No. 1257 of 1981 to his file and dispose of the revision in accordance with law. I make it clear that respondent No. 2 is not fettered by the specifications or fixation of yield fixed in Exhibit P-3 guidelines. If the respondents want to deviate from the guidelines contained in Exhibit P-3 it is for them to further allege and/or substantiate proper material therefor. If the petitioner has complied with the order passed by this court in C.M.P. No. 11326 of 1982 dated June 9, 1982, there will be no further collection of tax till the revision is disposed of by respondent No. 2 in accordance with law. The original petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs.

  ---

• 1984 (6) TMI 1
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ness of smuggling. It was a loss in much the same way as if the currency notes had been stolen or dropped on the way while carrying on the business. It was a loss occasioned directly from the carrying on of the business and was incidental to it. These were the reasons for allowing deduction under s. 10. It is true that the I.T. Act is not concerned as to how an assessee earns income. It may be by any method legal or illegal. So far as the State s share in the income is concerned, every assessee is treated alike irrespective of his method of earning. But, in the instant case, the assessee was not consistent in his contentions. He never contended before that he was engaged in the smuggling of watches and the confiscation thereof should be treated as a loss in his business of smuggling. It is, therefore, not possible for us to consider for the first time the contention raised in this reference. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.

  ---

1 ....7891011