Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (2) 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 60 of 74 Records

• 1967 (2) TMI 34 - MYSORE HIGH COURT AT BANGALORE
  

  Statement, confessional statement - Smuggling - Prosecution - Evidence

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he charge under Rule 126-P(2) of the Defence of India Rules, that he was in possession or had in his control some quantity of gold in contravention of the Defence of India Rules has been clearly made out. Rule 126-P(2) of the Defence of India Rules is entirely different and not covered by Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision of the learned Magistrate is manifestly erroneous and there are compelling reasons to set aside the same. 20.In the result, for the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal of the respondent passed by the learned Second Magistrate, Bangalore, and convict the respondent of an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. We also convict the respondent of the offence under Rule 126-P(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963 and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Smuggling - Burden of proof

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... easonable person would come to the conclusion that these goods were not purchased by the petitioner in the regular course of business and on the other hand, the whole transaction was tainted with the character of smuggled goods which are admittedly of foreign origin and also restricted goods though not prohibited ones. All that is involved is the priniciple, that the action must be attributable to the petitioner herein, i.e., it must have been done intentionally and not accidentally. Therefore I feel that the Customs authorities have discharged the burden of proof. As I have stated previously it is always not necessary to produce direct evidence to discharge the burden of proof. Burden of proof can be discharged also by the evidential burden, i.e., the burden producing sufficient evidence to justify a finding in favour of the party who is to discharge the burden of proof. 4. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As far as the penalty is concerned the petitioner succeeds.

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
  

  Power alcohol

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... mentioned above, which it uses to manufacture the ultimate product which is popularly known as industrial alcohol by denaturing the ethyl alcohol. That would make no difference manufacture of ethyl alcohol of that grade would entail the liability to duty. 8. It was also urged by the learned counsel that the appellate authority did not apply its mind to the question whether the denatured alcohol was suitable for the use mentioned in entry 6. The point does not appear to have been raised specifically in the appeal. The appellate order indicates that the authority hearing the appeal was of the opinion that the aforesaid alcohol was suitable for the use mentioned in entry 6. In any event it is clear that the petitioner never claimed that ethyl alcohol, which the petitioner has been manufacturing was not suitable for such use. The appellate authority cannot be held guilty of not deciding that point expressly. The petition fails and it dismissed, but without any orders as to costs.

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Provisional Assessment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... and hold that there has not been a provisional assessment in this case under that Rule, and therefore, the impugned notices and the two letters confirming them are bad and are, therefore, quashed by an appropriate writ and the appellants are restrained by an appropriate writ from interfering them or giving any effect thereon. That part of the judgment of the Court below which relates to Rules 10 and 10A is set aside and the point is kept open, namely, as to whether the appellants have any right to proceed, other than under Rule 9B. Our findings will be without any prejudice to such proceedings that may be brought in future. That part of the order which says that the current account of the petitioner-company must be readjusted if any debits had been made in respect of the sums covered by the notices will remain, but will be without prejudice to any adjustments that may be made in future, apart from the alleged provisional assessment under Rule 9B. We make no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether rule 1(f) (iii) of the seniority rules as framed in 1952 violates the guarantee under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

  Held that:- Promotees from Class II, Grade III, to Class I, Grade II Service, in excess of the prescribed quotas for each of the years 1951 to 1956 and onwards have been illegally promoted and the appellant is entitled to a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to adjust the seniority of the appellant and other officers similarly placed like him and to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with law after adjusting the recruitment for the period 1951 to 1956 and onwards in accordance with the quota rule prescribed in the letter of the Government of India No. F. 24(2) Admt. I.T./51 dated October 18, 1951. We, however, wish to make it clear that this order will not affect such Class II Officers who have been appointed permanently as Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax. But this order will apply to all other officers including those who have been appointed Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax provisionally pursuant to the orders of the High Court. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 29 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Amount received in one lump by the assessee from the Bombay firm along with their account statements, and was straightaway credited in one lump to the individual capital account in the name of the assessee in the books of account - books of account are books maintained in connection with the family money-lending business - assessability - not assessable as profit in the hands of the HUF

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 28 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Tribunal can refuse to consider the question of law urged before it if the same could have been decided on the material before it - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Search and seizure - validity - arguments of counsel for the petitioners have failed, all these petitions are dismissed

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Claim by the ITO to have privilege in respect of the production of the documents u/s 54 of 1922 Act - Whether privilege u/s 54 of the Act of 1922 against disclosure continues after repeal of Act and after repeal of section 137 of 1961 Act - Held,yes

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 25 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Good supplied by the assessee to the Govt. of India from outside taxable territories. Payment was made by cheque at Bombay on Reserve Bank - assessee received the payments at Jaipur outside the taxable territories and the profits and gains in respect of the sales made to the Govt. of India must be deemed to have been received by the assessee outside the taxable territories

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  There was no material for the finding that the shares in question were purchased by the assessee with a view to acquire the managing agency, and the control of the company - so, the shares constituted the stock-in-trade of the assessee - held that the profit by the sale of the shares could not constitute capital gain chargeable to income-tax under section 12B of the Act because they are chargeable as profits under section 10

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  One of the partner of a firm retired and sold goodwill. There was covenant by purchaser to pay a share of profits to retiring accountant for life and to his widow and son after his death - this amount was paid under covenant by new firm - amount paid by partner under covenant against goodwill was not business expenditure

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Undertaking for manufacture of motor bus and truck chassis was engaged in assembling motor vehicles from `complete knocked down` packs imported from Germany - assembling can not be treated as a separate activity before manufacture is begun

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  ITO computed the capital for the purpose of relief under s. 15C on the basis of the written down value of the assets as per the income-tax records without deducting initial depreciation from the written down value, and subsequently sought to rectify his assessment, under section 154 - held that there was no error apparent from the record -

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 20 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Reassessment proceedings - validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ngs, the aforesaid point of reference is answered in the negative, and it is held that the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer actually amounted to orders terminating the proceeding on the finding that, the income was nil and the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the reassessments were invalid. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative. In the result the sole question referred to in Reference No. 10 of 1965 and the second question of References Nos. 11 of 1965, and 14 and 15 of 1966, are answered in the affirmative and the question No. 1 in References Nos. 11 of 1965 and 14 and 15 of 1966 is answered in the negative. Both the questions are thus answered against the opposite-party, assessee, and in favour of the petitioner-department. The assessee will pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 100 in Reference No. 10 and a consolidated sum of Rs. 150 in References Nos. 11 of 1965 and 14 and 15 of 1966, to the petitioner by way of costs. RAMRATNA SINGH J.- I agree.

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Assessment of the trustees under s. 21(4) - validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... f opinion that the finding reached by the Tribunal in their supplementary statement on 10th June, 1966, was the correct finding. It must be held that the shares of the persons on whose behalf the assets were held by the trustees were, upon the terms of the trust deed, not indeterminate nor unknown on each of the valuation dates relevant to the assessment years in question. Therefore, the case would be governed by the provisions of section 21(1) and not by the provisions of section 21(4). The assessments should be made under section 21(1) of the Act. Accordingly we answer the first question in the negative. So far as the second question is concerned, it only arose because of the answer given to the first question, viz., that the assessments should be made under section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act. Since we have now negatived that question, we do not think that the second question arises and it is not necessary to answer it. The Commissioner shall pay the costs of the assessees

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Petitioner challenges the validity of those assessment orders and of the recovery proceedings taken consequent thereto - petition is allowed - order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax is quashed - Commissioner of Income-tax is directed to consider and determine afresh the earlier revision application filed by the petitioner

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the loss of Rs. 46,619 and Rs. 4,892 determined for the asst. yrs. 1949-50 and 1950-51, respectively, can be set off against the share of income of Rs. 20,414 determined in the asst. yr. 1951-52 - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  There is nothing in the agreement to show that impugned amount is payable to him in any other capacity than that of a partner and inasmuch as he is a partner in his representative capacity all remuneration paid to him as a partner must go to the HUF - liable to be taxed in the hands of his HUF

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Provision of section 44 clearly shows that, even though a partner is liable, the liability does not cease after dissolution. Therefore, the assessment completed against the firm was a valid assessmen

  ---

1234