Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1995 1995 (3) 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 361 to 375 of 375 Records

• 1995 (3) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  High Court, Supreme Court

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... members of the joint family by metes and bounds, it is not possible for the Wealth-tax Officer to accept the partition pleaded by an assessee under section 20(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. The partition as contemplated under section 20(1) of the Wealth-tax Act took place, according to the facts arising in this case, only on November 18, 1974, when a final decree was passed declaring the shares of the members of the joint family by metes and bounds. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case, on a plain reading of section 20(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the partition as per the provisions of section 20(1) of the Wealth-tax Act took place only on November 18, 1974, and not on January 10, 1967. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. However, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Financial Year, High Court, Supreme Court

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... company, I have dissented from a decision of the majority of this House. But the judicial system only works if someone is allowed to have the last word and if that last word, once spoken, is loyally accepted. We are very clear and we have no doubt in our minds that when a point is concluded by a decision of this court, all subordinate courts and inferior Tribunal within the territory of this State and subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court are bound by it and must scrupulously follow the said decision in letter and spirit. Since the second respondent has not decided the matter in accordance with law laid down by this court in the case of Bharat Textile Works 1978 114 ITR 28, the order passed by him requires to be quashed and set aside. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to pay interest to the petitioner in accordance with law on the amount refunded to him. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Higher Rate, Manufacture Or Production, New Industrial Undertaking, Rate Of Depreciation, Special Deduction

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 12 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Corrosive Chemicals, Higher Rate, Medical Expenses, Rate Of Depreciation, Sugar Industry

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal To AAC, Assessment Year, Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the profits of such year. It is not a case where there was no claim for deduction or non-determination of the deduction on account of non-availability of profits to be set off against such deduction. The claim was made, deduction was determined and the order was passed. The Act has provided a machinery for challenging such an order and if the procedure as provided under the Act has not been followed, then the claim could not be made in the year which has no relevance either with regard to the determination or even with regard to the set off of such deduction. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was correct in law in not considering the claim of the assessee during the assessment year 1972-73 holding that the assessee did not agitate the calculation of claim under section 80J done by the Income-tax Officer during the assessment year 1968-69. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Capital Gains, Cost Of Acquisition, Fair Market Value, Original Assessment, Original Order

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... section 154 of the Act. In the present case, the Income-tax Officer applied the wrong provision of law in the original assessment while permitting the assessee to exercise its option to adopt the fair market value as on January 1, 1954, as the cost of acquisition of the depreciable asset. This was permitted on the mistaken application of law. Later on by invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act the Income-tax Officer withdrew the permission given to the assessee to exercise its option to adopt the fair market value as on January 1, 1954. Since there is an error apparent on the face of the record in passing the original assessment order, warranting application of section 154, the order of the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the rectification order passed by the authorities below under section 154 of the Act. In that view of the matter, we answer these questions referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Industrial Company, Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... dertaking under section 80J as well as a poultry farm under section 80JJ has also been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there is no specific prohibition in these provisions as has been found in similar provisions. All these aspects have been taken into account when this court rendered the decision in Sri Venkateswara Hatcheries case 1988 174 ITR 231. That decision has become final. We are not persuaded to differ from it. We, therefore, answer the first two questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The third question is consequential as the assessee is entitled to enhanced depreciation on the footing that machinery has been utilised in an industrial company. The definition of industrial company being the same as that given for an industrial undertaking under section 80J this question also is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The referred case is accordingly disposed of.

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment, Power Of IAC, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Manufacture Of Article, Textile Business

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Right to receive Compensation - Whether the right to compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, constitutes an asset within the meaning of the Wealth-tax Act and specially in view of the fact where such compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act has neither been determined nor paid - Held, yes - valuation already made by the Wealth-tax Officer and the appellate authority shall be ignored and a fresh valuation should be made

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Amount paid by the assessee to the British company - Tribunal was right in holding that the sum paid by the assessee was a permissible deduction under section 37(1) as revenue expenditure.

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Mines And Quarries - Reassessment - Letter shows that a joint inspection was conducted in the colliery of the respondent by the officers of the Mining Dept. in presence of representatives of the assessee - It gives a reasonably specific estimate of the excessive coal-mining said to have been done by the respondent over and above the figure disclosed by it in its returns - notice are held valid as there was relevant material, on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 4 - SC ORDER
  

  Order passed by the ITO u/s18(3F) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 for deduction of tax at source from dividend at a lower rate - once the determination had been made by the Income-tax Officer under section 18(3F) and the respondent company had acted in accordance with it, the respondent company could not be said to be in default under the provisions of section 18(7).

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Appellant's claim about the amount being her winnings from races is not genuine. It cannot be said that the explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the said amounts has been rejected unreasonably and that the finding that the said amounts are income of the appellant from other sources is not based on evidence - no case is made out for interference with the order passed by the Settlement Commission.

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the word 'jewellery' in section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth tax Act, 1957, prior to the amendment of the section and the introduction of the Explanation by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, could take in gold ornaments without precious or semi-precious stones embedded on them - Held, yes

  ---

• 1995 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sub-partnerships are entitled to the benefits of registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65 - Held, yes - because Excise Act does not bar creation of such a sub-partnership

  ---

1 ....1516171819