Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1985 1985 (3) 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 221 to 229 of 229 Records

• 1985 (3) TMI 10 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Annual Value, Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Income From House Property

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 103 of 1974 decided on 16th December, 1981 (CIT v. R. Dalmia 1987 163 ITR 525 (Delhi)) and ITR Nos. 189 and 190 of 1975 decided on 2nd November, 1983 (CIT v. R. Dalmia 1987 163 ITR 519 (Delhi)). The answers have been in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department with tile result that the municipal value has to be taken as the annual letting value. As far as question No. 3 is concerned, it has been dealt with in another judgment of this court in CIT v. J Dalmia 1984 149 ITR 215. In accordance with that judgment, the right acquired by the assessee under the agreements to sell dated May 21, 1955, and August 31, 1959, has to be held to be not a proprietary right and hence the same was not a capital asset. Consequently, no capital gain could accrue. The result is that this question is also answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. As all the questions are covered by direct decisions, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (3) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Excise Duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y not be quite correct but, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in giving the aforesaid direction to the Assistant Controller. We, therefore, answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. The second question relates to a sum of Rs. 25,011 which was paid towards satisfaction or reduction of the debts which was included in the estate of the deceased. The correctness of the inclusion under section 46(2) is entirely dependent on the correctness of the disallowance under section 46(1). We have already held that on the facts of this case, the debt could not be disallowed under section 46(1) of the Act and on the same principle the sum of Rs. 25,011 could not be included in the estate of the deceased. In that view of the matter, we answer the second question also in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person. There will be no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.

  ---

• 1985 (3) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Reassessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... as agricultural income under the provisions of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, the same cannot be treated as capital receipts and charged as capital gains. It is no doubt true as pointed out by learned counsel for the Revenue that in the said decision, this court has held that albezia trees were not planted solely for the purpose of giving shade to the tea plants, but the same were raised specifically for the purpose of deriving income by regularly cutting and selling them for making kattamarans. Notwithstanding that finding, this court has held that the income by sale of those trees should be treated only as revenue receipts and not as capital receipts. In view of the said decision of this court, we do not think it possible to direct the Tribunal to refer the said question as the view taken by the Tribunal in this case is in accord with the view taken by this court in the above decision. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (3) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Reassessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r, remains that it is in the return for the subsequent assessment year 1960-61 under the Wealth-tax Act that the disclosure was made regarding the reduction in the holding of the shares. It cannot, therefore, be said that the assessee made a full or true disclosure of all primary facts. The finding of the Tribunal that there was omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the primary fact relating to the sale of the shares as a result whereof the capital gains escaped assessment has not been challenged in this proceeding. We have to confine ourselves to the facts as found by the Appellate Tribunal and answer the question in the setting and context of those facts. On the facts found by the Tribunal, the reopening of the assessment under section 147(a) of the Act is justified. In that view of the matter, the question in this reference must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1985 (3) TMI 6 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Business Expenditure, Sales Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... antile system of accounting and the liability to pay sales tax arose in the year in which the sale was effected. There was stay of recovery of tax for the period October 14, 1957, to June 30, 1958, granted on June 10, 1959. However, the stay was vacated on October 16, 1967, and the tax was paid in the assessment year 1968-69. So it was held that the sales effected in the earlier period are not allowable expenditure in the year 1968-69. Moreover, the sales tax was actually paid. The assessee further relied on a decision of this court in Bhagwandas Jagdishprasad and Co. v. CIT 1983 144 ITR 845 which has no application here. There, the Tribunal disallowed the claim on the ground that the method of accounting employed was mixed but did not examine as to what method was adopted in respect of sales tax and as such it was held that the Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the deduction claimed. Accordingly, the reference is answered in the negative in favour of the Department.

  ---

• 1985 (3) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  New Industrial Undertaking

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s admissible for the full year even if the undertaking has actually worked during the year for less than 12 months ? It is not necessary to burden this judgment by detailing the facts which are detailed in the statement of the case and dilating on the legal Position inasmuch as both the questions are covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 152 ITR 308 as also a decision of this court in CIT v. Sanghi Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. 1982 134 ITR 623 (MP) respectively. According to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. s case 1985 152 ITR 308, question No. 1 is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. Question No. 2, in view of the decision of this court in Sanghi Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. s case 1982 134 ITR 623, is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The reference is disposed of as indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1985 (3) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the sale price of water pumped out and discharged from the mine could be included in the annual net profits from the mine?

  . Held that:- The facts of the present case go a step further inasmuch as the water pumped out from the mine was separately sold for price and, therefore, obviously it is covered by the provisions of section 6, read with section 72 of the Act.

  Section 6 does not make any distinction as to whether the income is casual or a regular one. All that we are concerned with is whether the income derived by the sale of water pumped out from the mine is included in the profit from, the mine or not. We have not the slightest doubt that the income derived by sale of water pumped out from the coal mine constitutes a profit derived from the mine. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1985 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  "Tax Credit Certificate (Excise Duty on Excess Clearance) Scheme, 1965 " framed u/s 280ZD of I.T. Act 1961 - HC negatived the challenge of appellant on the ground that tax credit would not be available to the appellant company in respect of the special excise duty levied under s. 80 of the Finance Act having regard to the special meaning assigned to the expression " duty of excise by clause (b) of s. 280ZD(6) - HC order confirmed - as per the scheme, application of the assessee is time barred

  ---

• 1985 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Wealth-tax Officer was in law justified in including in the net wealth of the assessee interest due on accrual basis (though not realised) on the outstandings of the money-lending business, the accounts of the assessee being maintained on cash basis - question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee

  ---

1 ....89101112