Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1968 1968 (1) 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 21 to 40 of 48 Records

• 1968 (1) TMI 42 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... b) of that sub-section (including the proviso) will apply only to those sales of goods to a registered dealer who subsequently sells them (without their undergoing any change) to other persons for the purposes mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of that clause. 14.. We are not called upon to decide here as to what will be the penalty which a registered dealer like the petitioner will incur for contravention of the declaration given under the said notification while purchasing wheat free of sales tax. 15.. For these reasons, the Tribunal acted illegally in adding the sale price of bran to the taxable turnover of the petitioner, relying on the second proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act. 16.. Therefore, the two questions are answered as follows Question No. (1) answered in the negative. Question No. (2) also answered in the negative. The petitioner is entitled to its costs hearing fee Rs. 200. B. N. JHA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE
  

  Director – Disclosure of interest by, Oppression and mismanagement, Loans to directors, etc.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ntract with that company. The position of a director is in certain respects fiduciary. The point for examination in each case is whether, in a given situation, there arises any conflict between his duty as a director and interest as an individual. Apart from that essential circumstance which operates as an informative factor, the only other position that has to be examined is whether having regard to the terms and nature of the contract, the entering into the same is governed or controlled by any of the specific provisions of the Companies Act like sections 295, 297, etc. For these reasons, I do not think that any case has been made out for interference under section 398 of the Companies Act. I also do not think that the situation calls for the issue of any particular directions by me under the said section. The petition is dismissed. No costs. Company Application 120 of 1967 which has been posted along with the petition stands closed as no further orders on it arc necessary.

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
  

  Register of directors, etc. and Fees in schedule x to be paid

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the Companies Act payable on any document required to be filed after that section came into force is only a revenue demand and is neither a prosecution nor punishment by a court of law for an offence. The other contention of the learned counsel that on the date the default was committed the applicants were not liable to pay any additional fee has also no force because the additional fee charged under section 611(2) is payable under the Act on any document required to be filed after the section came into force and, therefore, the applicants were liable, on the date they applied for the registration of a change of directors, to pay an additional fee that was in force on that date. The prosecution of the applicants was under section 303(3) of the Companies Act for not notifying the change in the directorate and not for nonpayment of the additional fee demanded under section 611(2) of the Act. The result, therefore, is that this revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether assessee should have been given the exemption under section 12 of the Madras Act in view of article 14 of the Constitution?

  Held that:- The order of the Division Bench in appeal is clearly a speaking order dealing with the merits of the petition where only one point under article 14 was raised. In our opinion it bars the making of the present petition under article 32 on the same facts for the same relief based on the same article of the Constitution. The petitioner did not appeal from the order of the Division Bench. The High Court made a speaking order dealing with the merits of of the case and the fact that no notice was issued to the other side before such an order was passed is immaterial in the circumstances. We, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Where bonus shares were issued in respect of ordinary shares held in a company by an assessee who was a dealer in shares, their real cost could not be taken to be nil, or their face value. The majority judgment in this case stated that the bonus shares should be valued by spreading the cost of the ordinary shares over the old shares and the new issues taken together if they rank pari passu, and if they do not, the price may have to be adjusted either in proportion of the face value they bear, or on equitable considerations based on the market price before and after issue. In our opinion, makes no difference it is an investor or dealer.

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 23 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Evidence - Whether the copy of trial balance was admissible in evidence u/s 54 of IT Act - Held, yes - suit filed - limitation

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Inaccurate particulars of income - reason to believe - legality and propriety of the penalty levied on the assessee under section 28(1)(c)

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Petitions for certiorari and prohibition raise a question of the constitutional vires of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in so far as it imposes an annual tax in respect of the net wealth, particularly buildings - held that levy of wealth-tax is constitutionally valid

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee-bank - share premium received - inclusion in its paid-up capital within the meaning of Expln. (i) to Paragraph D of Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance Acts of 1956, 1957 and 1958, for the purpose of calculating the amounts of excess dividends on which super-tax rebates were to be withdrawn

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the respondent and the officers higher up failed to exercise their discretion properly u/s 220(6) of the IT Act, 1961 - Sub-s. (6) of s. 220 is wide enough to cover a stay on condition that the assessee should pay the disputed amount by instalments either in whole or in part and should furnish security for the balance - question is answered in negative - petition is dismissed

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Amount paid to the unmarried daughter from total income - claim for deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t case, even in M. K. Brothers case the matter would have been different. We do not think, therefore, that the decision in M. K. Brothers case assists the department. We hold, therefore, that the Tribunal was right in the view which it took that upon the two documents in this case the assessee created a charge in favour of his two daughters and that there arose an overriding right or title in favour of the two daughters to get the remuneration and profits which to the extent of that right or title ceased to be the remuneration and/or profits of the assessee. In that view it could not be taxed in his hands. Even assuming, however, that we are wrong in the construction of the two documents before us and that no charge has arisen, we think that the case will be clearly covered by the decision of this court in Motilal Manekchand s case which is binding upon us. In the result, we answer the question referred in the affirmative. The Commissioner shall pay the costs of the assessee.

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Applicant company - development rebate provided u/s 10(2)(vib)

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t rebate thereto as put forward by them before the revenue. We are unable to agree that such allowance has to be restricted to textile manufacturers or road operators. There cannot be any straining of the language if it is said that the appliances like typewriters, office accessories, bicycles, motor cars and adometers, etc., used for the purpose of expansion of their trade or marketing their products are not entitled to the development rebate contemplated in clause (vib) of section 10(2). We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in T.C. No. 80 of 1964 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. We answer the first question in T.C. No. 81 of 1964 in the negative and in favour of the assessee, the second question also is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. We answer the question in T.C. No. 129 of 1964 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As these tax cases were heard together, we allow only one set of costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Petitioner, firm - even if the ITO had the jurisdiction to make an order in the petitioner`s favour u/s 45, the discretion that he has exercised in not making that order in the petitioner`s favour does not call for interference by this (HC) court

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Reassessment notice - limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... o the two questions referred to us by the Tribunal will be as follows So far as the first question is concerned, our answer will be that the second proviso to section 34(3) as amended by section 18 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953, is not applicable in the case of any one or more of the assessees and their assessments are governed by the period of limitation as mentioned in the substantive part of section 34(3). The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative. Our answer to the second question is in the affirmative. Our answer to the third question, which we have framed on the supplementary statement of the case, is in the negative so far as the cases of the eleven assessees for the assessment year 1944-45 are concerned, and is in the affirmative in the case of the assessment of Onkarmal Meghraj for the assessment year 1943-44. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the assessee of the reference as well as of the notice of motion, which is made absolute.

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - petition for mandamus - petitioner is entitled to interest under the proviso to section 66(7)from the date of payment to the date of assessment - and the respondent would apply the proviso to section 66(7) accordingly and make suitable direction

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Jurisdiction of HC under section 66(2) - penalty proceedings were originally initiated by the Income-tax Officer at Trichur and it was because of a directive by section 274(2) he made a reference to the inspecting Assistant Commissioner - held that this (Madras) court will have not jurisdiction but the Kerala High Court will have jurisdiction u/s 66(2)

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Whether the tax due under the provisions of the (Kerala) Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (for short, the Act), in respect of income derived by a sthanamdar from sthanam property is, after his death, leviable from the person or persons on whom the property has devolved - Held, yes

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Assessees were doing business of manufacturing and selling textiles - sales - classification -Tribunal was right in holding that in respect of sales, the profit was correctly determined by the application of rule 33 and one-third of the profits so determined could be said to accrue or arise in British India

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 10 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Jurisdiction of ITO - to deal with cases - penalty proceedings

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nce with the recognized legislative practice. It has been urged for the petitioners that the provision for imposition of penalty under the new law Act is more harsh than the corressponding provision under the new Act. That may be so. it does not, however, follow that clause (g) is discriminatory or unconstitutional. It was suggested for the petitioners that an Income-tax Officer may delay assessment proceedings in order to bring a case under clause (g) instead of caluse(f). Now, Income-tax Officers are expected to dispse of all cases with expedition. If an Income-tax Officer deliberately delays completion of assessment proceedings in order to haraas a certain assessee, such action can be struck down by this court as mala fide. The bare possibility of some Income-tax ground for supposing that clause (g) is discriminating In my opinion, clauses (f) and (g) of sub-section (2) of section 297 of the Act are not discriminatory, and do not contravence article 14 of the Constitution.

  ---

• 1968 (1) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Payment to the Corporation of Madras under s. 110 of the Madras City Municipal Act - allowable expenditure - amount spent for carrying out certain maintenance and repairs work to its Calcutta office premises - alowable for deduction

  ---

123