Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1982 1982 (11) 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 121 to 132 of 132 Records

• 1982 (11) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Gratuity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... to rest our decision on the principles enunciated by the decision last mentioned, namely, the decision in the case of Hoosen Kasam Dada v. CIT 1937 5 ITR 182 (Cal), which proceeded on the basis that Almighty could not enter into a partnership with material persons. Therefore, we need not go into the question whether under any circumstance there can be a partnership with the deities, in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that view of the matter we will answer question No. 1 by saying that though the Hindu deity is a juristic person but in view of the clauses of this partnership the partnership deed was not entitled to be registered. In that view of the fact, question No.1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in the facts and circumstances of the case. The question No. 2 is also answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In view of the points involved in this case, parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1982 (11) TMI 11 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... . 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The sales tax liability admittedly having existed on March 31, 1970, and the same being treated as an admissible deduction in view of the Supreme Court s decision in Kedarnath s case 1971 82 ITR 363, even though the assessee did not debit the liability in its books of account, the Appellate Tribunal, in our view, rightly concluded that, From the totality of the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that the assessee is guilty of neither any concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) nor deemed concealment under the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) and did not misdirect itself in cancelling the penalty levied by the Revenue on the assessee-firm. In this view of the matter, we hold that no case is made out for directing the Tribunal to draw up a case and refer the questions posed in the petition by the Revenue for the decision of this court. Hence, the petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs. PREM CHAND JAIN J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1982 (11) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business Income, Chargeable To Tax, Profits

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d ceased to carry on any business, the Tribunal was right in upholding the view of the AAC that the sum received by the assessee-firm from the Railways during the assessment year in question was not chargeable to tax as business profits. As regards chargeability under s. 41(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has found that the conditions prescribed for charging tax under s. 41(1) of the Act were not fulfilled. A Division Bench of this court has hold in Naubatram Nandram v. CIT 1972 86 ITR 805, that s. 10(2A) of the I.T. Act, 1922, corresponding to s. 41(1) of the Act, envisages an actual allowance or deduction and not a national one. In view of this decision, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in holding that the provisions of s. 41(1) of the Act were not applicable. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Department. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.

  ---

• 1982 (11) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... o accept the book value of those assets of the firm as representing more or less their market value as on the date of death. In either case, there was no necessity for the Assistant Controller to make any fuss about arriving at the market valuations of each and every one of the assets of the firm item by item. We do not find in the method adopted by the Assistant Controller any contravention either of any principle of valuation or of any of the express provisions of s. 36 of the Act. The sum of Rs. 4,704 when mentioned in isolation may give an appearance that some fundamental principle of valuation has been given the go-by. In truth, however, as we earlier observed, this is only the end result of a comprehensive valuation made by the Assistant Controller of the interest of the deceased as a partner in this firm. For all the above reasons, we must return a negative answer to this question before us. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1982 (11) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Gratuity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ttributed to the statute. The company maintains its accounts on mercantile basis. If, therefore, it claimed deduction on account of accrual of liability for gratuity, the same will be hit by the bar under sub-s. (7)(a) of s. 40A of the I.T. Act irrespective of the fact whether the account books of the assessee referred to this liability or not. Thus in view of the non obstante clause in s. 40A of the I.T. Act no deduction was permissible under s. 37 of the Act for the assessee s liability for payment of gratuity to its employees without complying with the provisions of sub-s. (7)(a) of s. 40A of the Act. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the deduction of Rs. 28,59,431 under s. 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961, out of the total of Rs. 48,59,431 made by the assessee towards liability for gratuity. Costs of this reference will be borne by the assessee-respondent. Counsel s fee Rs. 250, if certified.

  ---

• 1982 (11) TMI 7 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... such a claim had been laid, it would at the most in the loose sense, be the property of the HUF of the assessee and his wife but that would not make it property in which the assessee s wife would have any right, title or interest as such. If K. Satyanarayan Murty had become the sole surviving coparcener and there was no question of any partition, the rule in Buddanna s case 1966 60 ITR 293 (SC) would have applied and the requirement of having at least two male coparceners would not have arisen. In view of the principle succinctly indicated in Chhabda s case 1975 101 ITR 776 (SC), we must come to the conclusion that the assessee s status should have been that of an individual and there was no scope to hold that the income was liable to be assessed in the status of an HUF. The question referred to us, therefore, is accordingly answered. I As there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee, we direct that there shall be no order for costs of the reference. PATNAIK J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1982 (11) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Devaluation, Loss Due To Devaluation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ndustrial Tribunal and the only year to which the liability under the award could be properly attributed was 1949. It was observed that an employer, who follows the mercantile system of accounting, incurs a liability towards profit bonus only when the claim, if made, is settled amicably or by industrial adjudication. In our case, as noted earlier, it has been found that the liability to pay in foreign currency had accrued when the books were imported. It did not come about as a result of devaluation. The stand taken up by the assessee that though the devaluation of Indian currency was announced six days after the end of the previous year, the assessee was justified in determining its liability on the basis of actual figures available particularly when the accounts for that year had not been finalised. Our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The assessee is entitled to costs which is assessed at Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1982 (11) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e white, brown, or black, whether he receives the scholarship from an Indian institution or from a Western institution. The essence of scholarship is that it should pay for the educational enterprises of a man s pursuit after knowledge. If scholarships are given for such a purpose, it cannot matter whether the recipient is of Indian origin or is of a foreign origin. We hope that there would be even handed justice from the CBDT and all the subordinate officials of the Income-tax Department in the matter of applying the exemption for scholarships irrespective of to whom and by whom these scholarships are meted out. For the reasons which we have earlier rendered on the facts of this case and on a true construction of the statutory provisions, our answer to the question of law must be in favour of the assessee and against the Department. We dispose of the reference accordingly. The Commissioner of Income-tax will pay the costs of the assessee in this case. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.

  ---

• 1982 (11) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment, Registered Firm

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hat the subject cannot be taxed twice over. Dealing with its earlier decision in the case of Murlidhar Jhaway and Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory 1966 60 ITR 95(SC), it was observed that the decision in that case could not be of much assistance as it related to an unregistered firm and to an assessment of the accounting year ending November 6,1953. The provisions which came up for consideration had no parallel to those made in respect of a registered firm by an express amendment of s. 23(5) by the Finance Act of 1956. It was observed that the facile analogy of passage of money given by Rowlatt J. in IRC v. Frank Bernard Sanderson 1921 8 TC 38 (KB) will not carry the matter further where the statute had made an express provision for the income of the firm and the income in the hands of the partners being both liable to tax. In our opinion, the points raised in the petition are devoid of any merit. The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby rejected. Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1982 (11) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Capital Gains

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 1)(iv) and (v), s. 24(l)(vi) and s. 27(i) of the Act. One other question which we are asked to consider in this reference relates to the assessment of capital gains in the assessee s hands. The relevant question is as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 52(2) cannot be invoked in the assessee s case to tax a sum of Rs. 43,000 as capital gains for the assessment year 1970-71 ? It is unnecessary to go into a detailed discussion for an answer to this question, because the matter is concluded not only by two decisions of this court in CIT v. Rikadas Dhuraji 1976 103 ITR 111 and Addl. CIT v. P. S. Kuppuswamy 1978 112 ITR 1012, but by a more recent decision of the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. ITO 1981 131 ITR 597. In the result, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The assessee will have his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).

  ---

• 1982 (11) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... at the way the gifts were made. Not only were they made to other people s children, but some of them were made to other people s Wives. In any place, excepting in a tax court, gifts to other people s wives, even if they are wives of co-partners, would raise a host of questions and not a few eye-brows, excepting when there is an understanding nod, Ah, it is all for purposes of income-tax . The ITO saw the facts with a layman s eyes, which was the correct way to look, at them. The Tribunal for their part, however, got involved in the convolutions of the Mitakshara law of gifts and brought to bear a dry and unreal legalistic approach to the application of s. 64, which the provision does not call for, if we understand Kothari s case 1963 49 ITR 107 (SC) aright. The result is, our answer must be in favour of the Revenue on both the questions of, law before us. The reference is accordingly answered. The assessee will pay the costs of the Department. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.

  ---

• 1982 (11) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Debt Due, Deduction, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ier Bench decisions of this court on this difficult question. The majority of the Full Bench have now taken the view that where debts are charged to partially exempted assets, the debts have got to be disallowed only in proportion to the exempted value of the assets. This decision of the majority, it will be seen, does not accept in toto either the assessees point of view or the Department s point of view but strikes a middle ground. The minority opinion in these cases has taken the, view that even though a debt is secured on a partially exempted asset, the debt must yet be allowed in whole. In view of the nature of the question, the difference of opinion between the learned judges, and the number of cases in which such questions are likely to crop up in the future, we hold that these are cases raising substantial questions of law for decision by the Supreme Court. We accordingly grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, both for the Revenue and for the assessees concerned.

  ---

1 ....34567