Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1968 1968 (8) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 111 of 111 Records
-
1968 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT
Notification No. 878-F - purpose of the Notification was to avoid double taxation by providing that if the amount has been assessed in the hands of the company the same should not be assessed over again in the hands of the assessee. There was nothing in the Notification to suggest that it was a condition precedent for getting the benefit of the Notification that the company should have expressly made a claim for deduction and that claim should have been expressly disallowed - exemption granted
-
1968 (8) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
Company filed an application before the CIT under s. 33A for revision of the assessment - application which was filed under s. 33A of the Act was completely barren of an explanation for this delay which had to be properly and satisfactorily explained - Assessee appeal dismissed
-
1968 (8) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
According to the third proviso to s. 5, the Act was not applicable to any business, the entire profits of which accrued or arose in an Indian State with the result that the profits of that business could not be included in the total computation of income of the assessee for the purpose of excess profits tax - Therefore s. 10A could not be applied to the present case - assessee's appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Company failed to declare dividend - company in a general meeting resolved to make available out of its reserve as dividend to the shareholders and to credit the account of each shareholder his respective share therein - Pursuant to that resolution Rs. 23,328 were credited to the account of the appellant who held 1,333 shares of the company - sum of Rs. 23,328 could not be assessed to tax in hands of appellant - Assessee's appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Since the respondents had been provisionally assessed, they were not persons who had `not hither to been assessed - hence, respondents were not liable to submit an estimate under s. 18A (3) or pay the tax - Revenue's appeal dismissed
-
1968 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Notice issued by ITO under s. 34 - Preamble of notice was defective but in the body of notice assessment year was clearly specified - negligence in drawing up of the preamble to notice did not affect the validity of notice - Assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1968 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Unexplained Cash Credits - Rejection Of Accounts - Where there is an explained cash credit, it is open to the ITO to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the ITO to show that that income is from any particular source - ITO was justified in its view that the impugned amount represented the assessee`s income from some undisclosed source - Revenue's appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Revised assessments u/s 34 - validity - assessee had failed to show that he did not know and was not aware of the true position in respect of the sum of Rs. 27,000 odd which was invested in the Sarpat and bamboo business - Assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1968 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
When under the scheme of the Act tax is assessed individually against each partner, and no tax is made payable by the partnership, the principle of joint and several liability under s. 44 cannot be invoked - CIT has jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice u/s 45 - Assessee appeal allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Appellant applied for registration as a firm u/s 26A - ITO refused the registration under s. 26A & passed an order of assessment holding that the assessee constituted a HUF and not a firm - ITO was not justified - members of the appellant firm could not be regarded as strangers to the proceedings which resulted in the assessment order made in respect of them on the basis of their constituting a HUF along with others - Assessee appeal dismissed
-
1968 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether speculative losses can be set off against profits from any other business activity under s. 10 - Held, No - Revenue's appeal allowed
....
|
|