Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1973 1973 (12) 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 61 to 74 of 74 Records

• 1973 (12) TMI 14
  

  Whether a declaration made under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for continuation of partnership signed by the partners, before the expiry of the accounting period is a valid declaration in law - we find that the question which is referred to us should be answered in the negative

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 13
  

  Profit on sale of shares - Held that the assessee in the instant case held a number of shares as he had shown Rs. 46,980 as income from dividend in the assessment year in question. A legitimate inference can be drawn from the facts that the assessee entered into contracts for forward sale in respect of 15,000 shares with the sole motive of profit and derived profit therefrom, He also showed the amount in question as business speculation profit in his return - held that the assessee derived the said amount as adventure in the nature of trade, and, as such, it was an income from business, within the meaning of section 2(13) of the Act, liable to be taxed

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 12
  

  Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 - whether the payment of Rs. 75,000 which the assessee has made to meet the marriage expenditure of his daughter is covered by the exemption clause (j) of section 5 of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 - We find that the whole of the disputed expenditure of Rs. 75,000 is exempted under clause (j) of section 5 of the Act. Our answer to the question referred to us is, therefore, in the affirmative

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 11
  

  Penalty for concealment - assessee received certain deposits and balances had not been returned to persons entitled to them - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in cancelling the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 ? " - So also in the present case, the admission was wrong and it was for the department to prove positively on other material that there was concealment of income. Being a quasi-criminal proceeding, the burden is entirely on the department. Apart from the so-called admission, there is no material to hold that the income was concealed - Question answered in the affirmative

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 10
  

  Whether the Government or the taxation authorities can retain with themselves amount of tax collected by them when the very basis of that collection has been subsequently held by the highest tribunal in the land to be without any legal basis or without any foundation in law - In the instant case we have based our decision on Tilokchand Motichand's case and the other two decisions of the Supreme Court in Gila Devi Aggarwal's case and Champalal Binani's case . Hence, it cannot be said that the question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Though one requirement, namely, of clause (a) is satisfied, the other requirement of clause (b) of article 133(1) as it stands after the 30th Amendment is not satisfied Under these circumstances, we regret that we cannot certify that this is a case which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. We, therefore, reject the oral application made on behalf of the petitioner

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 9
  

  Assessee was to acquire property absolutely on the death of his ancestor, according to a trust created by the latter - There was also a provision in the will giving share of commission to the assessee absolutely - In addition, the assessee also received income from ancestral property - Whether the income derived from the property received by Gordhandas under the trust settlement, and/or share income of the managing agency received by him under clause 12 of the will is assessable, in the hands of the Hindu undivided family consisting of Gordhandas and his son as coparceners - whether by his subsequent conduct the assessee had treated these properties as Hindu undivided family properties. - mere fact that the assessee had not kept separate accounts in respect of his income from these two types of properties cannot, in my opinion, be enough or equivalent to having thrown them into the common stock or of having blended them - income from the property received under the trust settlement and share of commission received according to the will are assessable as the assessee's individual income

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 8
  

  Excess depreciation was allowed due to non-disclosure by assessee of initial depreciation - income chargeable to tax escaping assessment - Whether it can be said that there is under-assessment due to default of the assessee - petitioners challenge these notices under section 148 of the Act of 1961 seeking to re-open assessments under section 147.

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 7
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Whether the deed of revocable settlement dated 4th July, 1957, constitutes a gift liable to gift-tax.
  2. If affirmative, whether the value of the gift can be taken to be zero in the absence of a specified period for which the transfer was not revocable under section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Whether the deed of revocable settlement dated 4th July, 1957, constitutes a gift liable to gift-tax.
  
  The court examined the provisions of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, particularly the definitions of "donee," "gift," "property," and "transfer of property" under section 2. The term "gift" is defined as a transfer of property made voluntarily and without consideration. Section 6(2) deals with the valuation of gifts that are not revocable for a specified period.
  
  The court also referred to relevant provisions from the Transfer of Property Act, the Indian Trusts Act, and the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act states that a gift revocable at the mere will of the donor is void. Section 78(b) of the Indian Trusts Act allows for the creation of a revocable trust, and Section 12(1) of the Estate Duty Act considers property under a revocable trust to pass on the settlor's death.
  
  The main contention was that the trust property should not be liable to gift-tax because the trust was revocable at any time at the will of the settlor. The court agreed, stating that the donor cannot be said to have transferred property if he retains an unrestricted power to revoke the trust. This view aligns with the essential meaning of a gift, which must be irrevocable, as indicated by section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act and section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act. The court concluded that a trust with an unlimited power of revocation does not amount to a gift under the Gift-tax Act.
  
  Issue 2: If affirmative, whether the value of the gift can be taken to be zero in the absence of a specified period for which the transfer was not revocable under section 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act.
  
  Since the court decided that the trust in question does not constitute a gift liable to gift-tax, this issue did not arise. However, the court noted that even if the trust were considered a gift, section 6(2) would not apply because it deals only with gifts that are not revocable for a specified period. Therefore, the value of the property in such a trust cannot be taken to be zero under section 6(2).
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court answered the first question in the negative, stating that the deed of revocable settlement does not constitute a gift liable to gift-tax. Consequently, the second question did not arise. If necessary, the court would have stated that section 6(2) has no application to the trust in question, and the value of the property cannot be taken to be zero under that section. The Commissioner was ordered to pay the assessee's costs of the reference.

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 6
  

  This appeal is directed against an order of the District Judge by which the petition of the appellant under section 153A(1)(f) of the Companies Act, 1913, seeking an order providing for payment of certain tax outstandings of respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1 and/or respondent No. 3 was dismissed on the grounds that the petition was not only not maintainable but was also barred by time and the question that this appeal raises are as to the true construction of the provisions of section 153A(1)(f) of the Act of 1913 and its corresponding provision in the Act of 1956 as also of the provisions of article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Whether application for discharge of tax liability of transferor-company under a scheme of amalgamation by transferee company and/or liquidator of transferor-company would be maintainable

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 5
  

  Is Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as inserted therein by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, wholly or partly a law enacted "for the purpose of imposing or levying any tax or penalty" within the meaning of article 31(5)(b)(i) and/or is it a "law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of article 39" within the meaning of the first part of article 31C of the Constitution - Whether provisions for acquisition of property in cases of certain transfers to counteract evasion of tax are valid - Whether they interfere article 14, 19 and 31 of Constitution of India

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 4
  

  Scope and effect of the provisions in sections 54 and 59B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and sections 137 and 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - position of law relating to privilege after April 1, 1964 - "What is the effect of the production of certified copies relating to income-tax assessment records, and how far certified copies can be admitted in evidence?" - whether the confidential nature of the aforesaid documents, records, etc., and the prohibition against their being required by a court to be produced or evidence thereof to be given as well as the liability of a public servant to be punished for disclosure of the particulars contained in the documents, records, etc, continued to subsist even after April 1, 1962, with effect from which date the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, had been repealed and the Income-tax Act, 1961, came into force

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 3
  

  This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside an order of rectification of a wealth-tax assessment passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax on the 22nd of February, 1972, pursuant to the amendment effected in section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971 (Act No. 32 of 1971) as well as for a writ in the nature of prohibition and/or mandamus restraining the respondents from taking any further steps or proceedings for recovery of the tax on jewellery and ornaments in enforcement of the said rectification order dated 22nd February, 1972

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 2
  

  Section 132 of Income-tax Act, 1961 & Rule 112 of 1962 IT Rules do not violate the fundamental rights under article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution - no substance in the contention that the income-tax authorities could not have possibly entertained the required belief. The search and seizure, therefore, impugned in this writ petition cannot be regarded as illegal

  ---

• 1973 (12) TMI 1
  

  Hindu deity can hold property and be in receipt of income and can also sue and be sued in a court of law there is no reason why its income should be held to be outside the ambit of taxation if it can be brought within it without straining the language of the statutory provision - Hindu deity is an "individual" within the meaning of section 3 of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922

  ---

1234