Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1968 1968 (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 41 to 60 of 67 Records

• 1968 (3) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the courts below had committed a material mistake in the exercise of jurisdiction in relying upon the probable cost of constructing a new building of a similar type in order to estimate the capital value?

  Held that:- True method of determination of the capital value was not adopted in the courts below. We therefore set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and remand the matter back to the District Judge for him to determine the capital value in the light of the observations made by us after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the subject. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 26 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  ITO rejecting petitioner's application under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 - impugned application under article 226 of the Constitution to issue writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the Income-tax Officer

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  ITO found that the income of the firm for the asst. yr. 1949-50 had escaped assessment and as he was of the opinion that by the two deeds of transfer executed on the July 21, 1952, which formed a composite part of a single transaction, the firm consisting of five partners was in effect dissolved on that date - Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no discontinuance or cesser of the business of the firm on July 21, 1952

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Commercial profits - applicability of provisions of section 23A(1)

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... into consideration the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the commercial profits available after taking into account the concealed profits amount to Rs. 1,08,950. That figure is derived by setting off the amount of the concealed profits of Rs. 2,49,809 against the loss shown by the assessee in its return at Rs. 1,40,859. The loss returned by the assessee is on the basis of the depreciation claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal has found that even if the entire amount of depreciation claimed by the assessee is taken into account the Income-tax Officer would still be justified in applying section 23A. We are not satisfied that this conclusion of the Tribunal is incorrect. In Our judgment, the provisions of section 23A(1) of the Act are attracted in the instant case. Accordingly, we answer the question referred by the Tribunal in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Income-tax is entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure.

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 23 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Immovable properties - valuation of properties method adoptted - annual value or value given in balance sheet - determining the net worth

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Computing the double tax relief - Merely because an amount was included in the computation of the total world income for the purpose of the IT Act, it would not follow that it has also suffered double tax when in fact it has suffered only one tax.

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  CIT filed a suit in 1960 - defences of the appellant were that the suit was barred by s. 67 of the IT Act and that the suit was also barred by limitation - contentions of appellant are not acceptable - suit was not time barred

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 20 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Change of jurisdiction to successor ITO - when the successor imposed the penalty without giving any opportunity to the assessee and hearing - held that the ITO was bound to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and the order imposing penalty was not legal

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 19 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Search and seizure - allegation that it was illegal, irregular and improper

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... vy Council in Kuruma v. Queen in which the Judicial Committee quoted with approval the following observation of Crompton J. in Reg v. Leatham It matters not how you get it (evidence) if you steal it even, it would be admissible. The learned judge held that the ratio deducible from those decisions was that irrespective of the means or the manner by which the evidence is secured, its admissibility is dependent on the question of relevancy of such evidence, and it cannot be ruled out on the mere ground that it had been procured by improper or illegal means. That, no doubt, is the correct principle and we are in respectful agreement with the learned judge. That question, however, is rather academic in this case because we have, as indicated above, reached the conclusion that the search and seizure do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. It follows that this writ petition. is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee, Rs. 150.

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the ITO was justified in initiating action u/s 34(1)(a) or he should have taken recourse to section 34(1)(b) of the Act - held that it makes no difference whether action is taken u/s 34(1)(a) or u/s 34(1A) - action of ITO is justified

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 17 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Reassessment notice u/s 34(1)(a) - legallity/validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ranting permission to the Income-tax Officer, F-Ward, Amristar, to take action under section 34(1)(a) against the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax had, by implication, withdrawn his previous order under section 5(7A) transferring the case to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Amritsar. In our opinion, there is no warrant to draw any implication or inference as submitted by the assessee s counsel. On the other hand, sub-section (5) of section 64 imposes a statutory duty on the transferred authority to dispose of the assessment or reassessment in accordance with the directions of the Commissioner. The subsisting direction in this regard was issued by the Commissioner only to the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, and we do not see how the order passed in pursuance of that direction can be said to be invalid. The answer must, therefore, be given in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference, which we assess at Rs. 200.

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 16 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Seizure - legality

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e information kept in the minds of the concerned authorities but complete copies thereof are kept. On the one hand, article 19 may be construed to mean that complete restitution of property would require restitution of those copies as well. On the other hand, it may be said that, since the court or the authority has still the power to call for that information, the authority may use those copies if the information or the documents are not produced. In that situation it cannot be argued that article 19 forbids the use of such copies completely. What will be the situation if there is no power in law in the authority concerned to call for such information or documents does not arise before us and I need not consider that. I would like to make it clear that I am expressing no opinion on the impact of article 20 on the use of such information. In the circumstances, this petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs. ANDLEY J. - I entirely agree. Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - registration

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... year, which is the same in income-tax parlance as the accounting year. How the income of an existing partnership in that year can be assessed on two different bases is hard to comprehend. In this case also if the Tribunal s decision is held to be correct, the effect would be that for the same assessment year there would be two assessments on two different bases, namely, one on the basis of a registered firm for the period 1st February to 30th September and the other on the basis of an unregistered firm for the period 1st October to 31st December. This, in our opinion, is not permissible. If the authorities below had granted registration to the firm as constituted under the instrument dated the 18th April, 1957, for the period 1st February to 30th September, 1957, there could not possibly be any objection. But in granting registration to the reconstituted firm for only a part of the accounting year, the Tribunal, in my opinion, has erred. I concur in the order made by my Lord.

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 14 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessee, who has no male issue, constitutes a Hindu undivided family with his wife and unmarried daughters in respect of the income from property which has fallen to his share on partition - Held, yes

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Order made by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate making over certain documents seized by the police, to the Income-tax Officer - Since Order XIII, rule 10, confers such power on the civil court to call for documents from other courts, the ITO too has such powers u/s 131(1) of the Act

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Trust - Whether having regard to the terms of annexure 'A', the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest of the assessee under the trust had no value - Held, no

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the sons would be liable to pay the penalty imposed on them for the alleged acts of contravention by their father - Held, no

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 10 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the sum paid as penalty u/s 3(5) of the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, on the arrears of sugarcane cess is an allowable deduction in computing the profits of the assessee - Held, no

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Whether it is legal to make an assessment on an unregistered firm, after some of its partners have already been assessed to tax on their share income from the firm - held, no

  ---

• 1968 (3) TMI 8 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  When the ITO for the first time came to the conclusion that there being common partners of both the firms, the two units constituted one assessable entity for purposes of income-tax - whether the business was one or separate was a question of fact which could only be determined by the Tribunal after taking into consideration all the relevant materials

  ---

1234