Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1979 1979 (10) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 168 of 168 Records
-
1979 (10) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... In Addl. CIT v. Balwantsingh Sulakhanmal 1981 127 ITR 597 (MP), we have held that if penalty proceedings are initiated in connection with return filed in response to the notice under s. 148 of the Act, the default would not be attributable to the return filed in the course of the original assessment proceedings. We have also held, in that case, that it is the law in force on the date on which the wrongful act is committed which would determine the penalty. In view of this decision, it must be held, in the circumstances of the case, that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the default was attributable to the return of income filed in the course of the original assessment proceedings and that the amended provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were not applicable. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and against the assessee. As none appeared on behalf of the assessee, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1979 (10) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... brought the assessment to capital gains on reference to this court. As regards the first question, it is not in dispute that in Addl. CIT v. P. S. Kuppuswamy 1978 112 ITR 1012 (Mad), an identical question of applicability of section 52(2) has been considered and that the answer in the light of that decision should be against the Department. We, therefore, answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The second question does not really call for an answer in view of the answer given above. The point raised is whether the exemption under section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would be available. This question has been considered in T.C. No. 220/75 and T. C. No. 221/75 in our judgment dated February 16, 1979 (CIT v. Bharani Pictures 1981 129 ITR 244) and if an answer to this question is called for, it would have to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (10) TMI 6 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... se to this court. Hence, this petition. The arguments advanced before the Tribunal have been reiterated. We are unable to hold that the Tribunal has acted on any irrelevant material or has failed, to consider material evidence on record. The circumstances considered by the Tribunal regarding the existing loan and the financial stringency of the assessee as detailed in the documents on record cannot be said to be irrelevant material. This court, in exercise of its power under section 256 (2) of the Act, only exercises advisory jurisdiction. It cannot go into the question whether the conclusion of the Tribunal arrived at on facts was based upon insufficient evidence. We are unable to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on no evidence. No question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal and as such we find no reason to ask the Tribunal to state the case. The application for reference is, therefore, dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.
-
1979 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Accumulated Profits - section 2(6A)(e) - interpretation - whether accumulated profits can take in current profits - section 2(6A)(e) could not be interpreted as includes current profits - appeal of revenue is allowed
-
1979 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the transactions in which the assessee was engaged were "speculative transactions "as defined by Expln. 2 to s. 24(1) - hold that the High Court was right in answering the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
-
1979 (10) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the loss of Rs. 1,03,688 was the result of speculative transactions within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 24(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and, therefore, was not allowable to be set off under section 24(1) - Transactions of sale and purchase were settled by handing over delivery orders and payment by cheque - question is answered in favour of revenue
-
1979 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled in law to set-off unabsorbed loss of Rs. 15,50,189 of the assessment year 1950-51 against the business income of the assessment year 1960-61 - held, no - law applicable is the law that is in force in 1960-61.
-
1979 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Four brothers, members of a coparcenary, partitioned their family properties, leaving in common a large house in the occupation of their mother - Coparceners in joint house property released deed in favour of the assessee, for extra share to be given - it amounts to ' purchase ' of house property by assessee - entitled for relief from capital gains u/s 54(1)
....
|
|