Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1984 1984 (7) 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 301 to 306 of 306 Records

• 1984 (7) TMI 6 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ITR 675 (AP) Laxmichand Hirjibhai v. CIT 1981 128 ITR 747 (Guj) Universal Commercial Company v. CIT 1981 130 ITR 775 (Mad) and CIT v. V H. Sheth 1984 148 ITR 169 (Bom). The above view has been followed by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Calcutta, Gujarat and Madras. Mr. Surolia, learned counsel for the Department, in view of the weighty decisions of all the High Courts in India had nothing to say contrary to the above view. In view of these circumstances, we also hold that once the assessment of a partner or a member of an association having been made by taxing directly his proportionate share from the firm or association, the Income-tax Officer is precluded from assessing the firm in the status of an unregistered firm or association of persons. In the result, the question referred to us in Income-tax Reference No. 26 of 1974 is answered in the negative and against the Department. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties shall bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1984 (7) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Capital Gains

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e is an understatement or concealment of the consideration in respect of the transfer. Since the Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record in the light of these principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Varghese s case 1981 131 ITR 597, it is not possible to answer the questions referred to us. Apart from that, there are other infirmities in the order of the Tribunal. It has proceeded on the ground that the departmental valuer has adopted different rates for the construction of the ground floor and the first floor. But, we find from the report that he has applied the same rate as Rs. 45 per sq.ft. The Tribunal has also not considered the objections filed by the assessee against the report of the valuation officer, which objections were based on the rates prescribed by the public works department. For these reasons we decline to answer the questions. The Tribunal may dispose of the matter in the light of the observations made and in accordance with law. No costs.

  ---

• 1984 (7) TMI 4 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Agricultural Income Tax, Revision

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ty to be afforded to the assessee under section 34(1) of the Act. So, understood I fail to understand how the second proviso to section 34(1) of the Act is ultra vires or violates article 14 of the Constitution of India. I reject the plea of the petitioner. The files relating to the assessment year 1976-77 were placed before me by the Government pleader. The petitioner s counsel had an opportunity to go through the relevant files. It could be seen from the files that due notice and opportunity were given to the petitioner both by the assessing authority and also by the revisional authority. The petitioner having failed to avail of the opportunity afforded to her, cannot turn round and attack Exhibits P-1 and P-2 orders on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to her. There is no error of law or other jurisdictional error or illegality in Exhibits P-1 and P-2 orders. They are valid and legal. The original petition is without force. It is dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1984 (7) TMI 3 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Appeals, Income Tax Concession, New Industrial Undertaking

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... on under section 80J of the Income-tax Act is permissible regardless of the consideration whether the new industrial undertaking functions only for a part of the year or for the entire year. Once the new industrial undertaking functioned in any part of the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, then the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction fully. We may refer to the decisions in CIT v. Simpson and Company 1980 122 ITR 283 (Mad), CIT v. Sanghi Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. 1982 134 ITR 623 (MP), Addl. CIT v. Dr. K. P. Karanth 1983 139 ITR 479 (AP) (sic) and CIT v. Mysore Petro-Chemical Ltd. 1984 145 ITR 416 (Kar), supporting the above view. We are also informed that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has also since issued a circular bearing No. 378, dated March 3, 1984, affirming the above position as correct. In the above view, we answer the second question also in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.

  ---

• 1984 (7) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Agricultural Income, Income Of HUF, Individual Income, Jurisdiction Of Tribunal, Total Income

  ---

• 1984 (7) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... identical question came up for consideration before this court in two earlier decisions one in Addl. CIT v. Madras Fertilisers Ltd. 1980 122 ITR 139 and the other in T. C. No. 611 of 1979 judgment dated April 19, 1984 CIT v. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. 1985 156 ITR 542, wherein this court has held that the interest paid on its borrowal for the purpose of the business is deductible from the interest earned on its investments made out of the borrowed funds, and that question was answered in the negative in the said cases. Following the decisions rendered in those cases, we answer the question in this case in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.

  ---

1 ....1213141516