Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (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 41 to 58 of 58 Records

• 1972 (11) TMI 19 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Attachment And Sale, Income Tax Act, Legal Representative

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... er no other result than what is stated there is likely to be produced. Neither writ of certiorari, therefore, is possible, nor any mandamus is going to be useful in the circumstances of the case. Even otherwise, as stated above, as we are satisfied that it is the Central Government which took the decision, the writ petition loses all its force. The second contention was that the order is not a speaking order, and, therefore, it should be quashed. We do not think that is a valid ground on the basis of which we can quash the order. It must be remembered that section 52 of the Estate Duty Act confers a discretion upon the Central Government to take a property in lieu of arrears or not. The counter gives the reasons as to why the Government does not consider it advisable to take the land in lieu of the arrears. We are, therefore, not inclined to quash the order on that ground. Since no other contention was raised the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100.

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 18 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Best Judgment Assessment - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that no notice under section 142(1) was necessary to complete the assessment tinder section 144 ? " It is relevant to state that it is not the argument of Sri Albal that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 144 are not alternative conditions, but cumulative. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in the view it has taken that notice under section 142(1) of the Act was discretionary and the non-issue of a notice under the said sub-section does not render the Income-tax Officer incompetent to make an order under section 144 of the Act.

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 17 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Delay in filing of returns of the income - levy of interest – justification - It is conceded that the interest demanded is not arbitrary and was payable. The Income-tax Officer appears to have made a mistake on the earlier occasion which he has rectified after the appellate order. As it appears consequent upon the appellate decision the interest has been worked out. All the writ applications are accordingly dismissed

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether best judgment assessment under section 144 can be made when notice under section 148 has been issued? - When assessment is made under section 144, whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the materials gathered by the Income-tax Officer – appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - In these writ petitions the petitioners seek to quash the assessment orders made against them by the concerned Wealth-tax Officer - Whether the provision granting higher exemption limit for persons owning agricultural lands are discriminatory in nature – held that it is not discriminatory

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - jurisdiction of the Tribunal - " Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in adjudicating upon a question not raised in the grounds of appeal ? "

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 13 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the court can go into adequacy of the reasons - Whether search and seizure warrant can be issued against another Government department in respect of the amount seized under another law - whether the order under s 132(5) section passed without giving the assessee an opportunity to take copies of seized documents would be valid

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Petitioner's late husband, one T. M. Abdul Rahim, was in arrears of income-tax, interest thereon and penalty aggregating to Rs. 4,37,868.29. For recovering the said amount, recovery proceedings were initiated by the income-tax department. A certificate was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the Tax Recovery Officer under section 222 - When the defaulter dies, whether attachment and sale without demand notice on legal representative is valid

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 11 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Addition of cost of undisclosed sale of grains - Tribunal allowed for shortage due to storage in accordance with the notification of the co-operative department. Whether a question of law arises from this decision - This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on behalf of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, praying that the Appellate Tribunal be directed to state the case and refer a question of law arising therefrom – held that no question of law arises

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 10 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  One member of the family gets divided and there are no other coparceners - whether the separated member can constitute a joint family by himself - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's status was correctly taken as that of an 'individual'? - In the present case, the assessee does not have any other person, male or female, as a member of his family. As a sole coparcener, he cannot, in law, be deemed to constitute a Hindu undivided family. He was rightly assessed in the status of an individual - Question answered in the affirmative

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessee's income or profit can be computed on the basis of the margin of profit adopted in the previous assessment year - Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal for computing the gross profit in the manner it did

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 8 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that section 5(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, applied to the gift under consideration and that the gift was liable to tax under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ? "

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - assessee in this case is a Hindu undivided fammily and it was one of the three partners of a firm - Whether re-distribution of profit-sharing ratio among partner attract gift-tax provisions and whether the value of gift is to be calculated on the goodwill or on the entire assets

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 6 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the initial depreciation of Rs. 1,01,814 was not to be deducted for the purpose of computing the written down value for computing the profits under section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? - 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in applying the provisions contained in sec tion 10(5)(b) instead of section 10(5)(c) ? "

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 5 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profits on the sale of cooly lines situated on agricultural lands are liable to be charged to income-tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act ? Does the exemption of 'agricultural land' from the definition of capital assets in section 2(14)(iii) take in buildings situated on agricultural land in view of the maxim that 'whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of it ?"

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Delay in filing return - levy of interest and penalty - petitioner challenges the orders of the Income-tax Officer, levying penalty under section 271(1) – held that provision for levy of penalty as well as interest for delayed filing of return cannot be said to be offending any constitutional provision

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Voluntary Liquidation - High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that Rs. 31,26,000, mentioned in the question referred to the High Court, is a " debt " due from the assessee-company - Tribunal is not right in holding that the claim of the assessee for the deduction of Rs. 31,26,000 was rightly rejected as coming under s. 2(m)(ii)

  ---

• 1972 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Revision order - validity - income assessed in assessee's hands was cancelled in revision on the ground that some other person was liable to tax on it - order was valid

  ---

123