Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1966 1966 (9) 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 101 to 107 of 107 Records

• 1966 (9) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Act of 1922 - Act of 1961 - ITO had no power to issue a penalty notice under s. 274 r/w s. 271 of the Act, 1961

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 6 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
  

  Amount received as annual allowance by the assessee - since, payment of the allowance is neither casual nor of a non-recurring nature, amount received as annual allowance by the assessee was revenue income liable to tax

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Notice Of Penalty - Service Of Notice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ed under section 274 of the present Act and that the requirements of that section were satisfied and that the defect in the notice, if any, would not render the penalty proceedings or the order passed in those proceedings invalid. Section 274 only requires that no penalty should be imposed without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed. That was done in this case. In response to the notice, the assessee appeared before the Income-tax Officer and made submissions. No prejudice was caused to the assessee because of any defect in the notice. We, therefore, conclude that the Tribunal was right in holding that the defect in the notice did not invalidate the imposition of the penalty. Our answer to the second question is, therefore, in the negative. The reference is answered as indicated above. The Commissioner of Income-tax, M. P., shall pay the costs of this reference. Hearing fee Rs. 100. Questions answered in the negative

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 4 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Application u/s 67 of the Mysore Agrl. IT Act, 1957, for composition of the agricultural income-tax payable by him was rejected by the Agrl. ITO on the ground that he had `learnt` that the assessee had reaped and derived an income from pepper and cardamom which are plantation crops as defined by s. 2(1)(q) - held that Agrl. ITO should proceed to allow composition under s. 67 according to law

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the sum of Rs. 4,796 paid to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is an allowable deduction - Held, yes

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 2 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Baddebt - assesse's appeal allowed

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r. It is sufficient to state that we cannot accept the view of the Tribunal that in no event can a partner who advances moneys to a firm of which he is a partner occupy the position of a creditor or be said to carry on the business of money-lending. Having arrived at the above conclusion, the next question to be considered is whether, in the circumstances of the case, the moneys advanced by the assessee do not merely represent the capital he was bound to contribute, but constitute money-lending business. But, for answering this, there is no evidence on record. The first question referred to us, viz., whether or not the advances made by a person to a firm of which he is a partner constitute money-lending business is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The Tribunal will dispose of the case in the light of this answer. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. First question answered in favour of the assessee.

  ---

• 1966 (9) TMI 1 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Amount realised by the assessee by the sale of plots - not revenue profits chargeable to income-tax

  ---

1 ....23456