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 61 to 74 of 74 Records

• 1967 (2) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Bonus shares - WTO proceeded on the basis as if sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 7 gave him a right to proceed on either of two alternative basis and he was at liberty to proceed on the balance-sheet if he liked despite the objections by the assessee, the procedure prescribed in s. 7 - Tribunal was justified in excluding the sum from the net value of the assets, as shown in the balance-sheet of the assessee

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Compensation from the Government - Capital receipt not revenue recipt

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he estimated mesne profits of the plot. If there had been a contract, and such a payment had been made under the contract, that payment would have been in the nature of rent and obviously the rent would be a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee. On the facts that case can have no analogy with the present case. In our opinion it is clearly distinguishable. In the circumstances we hold that the amount received by the assessees for the requisitioning of their six sheds or godowns was in the nature of a capital receipt in their hands paid to them for the damage sustained by their profit-making apparatus. It was not a revenue receipt and was not taxable in the hands of the assessees. We answer the question referred to us as follows The amount of Rs. 1,05,074 received by the applicants-assessees as compensation from Government was not taxable as income of the applicants-assessees but was a capital receipt in their hands. The Commissioner shall pay the costs of the assessees

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 12 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Carry forward a loss - set off against the profits - return of loss

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he carry forward of losses. It is not suggested, nor does it follow from the facts stated in the affidavit, that any other benefit is likely to be derived by him from a consideration of his returns of losses or that any detriment or prejudice is likely to result by the omission or refusal on the part of the Income-tax Officer to examine those returns. Hence, the rather loosely worded expressions of the officer in his assessment order to the effect that he cannot take cognizance of the returns or that the returns cannot be acted upon and should be filed are not of any direct bearing on, or relevance to, the rights and interests of the petitioner. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is not a case in which a writ of mandamus should issue to entertain and take up for consideration the returns made by the petitioner in respect of the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 11 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the sum of Rs. 19,453, being a debt in relation to speculative transactions, falls within the scope of s. 24(1), first proviso; of the IT Act - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Income-tax assessment and the wealth-tax assessments - gift by the applicant to his son

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... efore us there is no evidence of the gift having been made or its having been acted upon. As has been pointed out by the Tribunal, there is no evidence, whatsoever about the acceptance of the gift by or on behalf of the donee. So far as the amount purported to have been gifted is concerned, nothing has happened excepting certain entries having been made in the accounts of the partnership. The amount remains invested in the business of the partnership and has in no way been dealt with by and on behalf of the minor. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was right in the view that it has taken and the result, therefore, is that the questions referred to us must be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. We accordingly answer each of the two sets of questions referred to us in connection with the income-tax assessment and the wealth-tax assessments in the affirmative. The assessee will pay the costs of the department. Questions answered in the affirmative

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Revised Return - Whether, there was any evidence on which the Tribunal could come to the conclusion that the petitioner had concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars for the purpose of s. 28(1)(c) of the IT Act - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal To Tribunal - Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with the said item of Rs. 4,72,500 in the face of the AAC's statement that the ITO had conceded the point and had no objection to the exclusion of the said sum of Rs. 4,72,500 from the assessment - Held , no

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Firm - Minor admitted to benefits of Partnership - registration

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... . In Dwarakadas Khetan s case no part of the document could be said to be valid so far as the minor was concerned, whereas in the present case it is only because of one single term, namely, the provision as to losses, that the invalidating effect is sought to be attributed to the document. We do not think that it was the intention of the Supreme Court to say that any and every error in a document giving rise to some illegality would vitiate the entire document and preclude its registration under section 26A. That would be an exteremly technical view to take and, in our opinion, the Supreme Court has not taken any such view. For these reasons, we answer the question as follows Q Whether the firm, being genuine, is entitled to registration for the assessment years 1953-54 and/or 1954-55 on the basis of the deed dated April 14, 1953 ? A For the assessment year 1953-54 ... in the negative. For the assessment year 1954-55 ... in the affirmative. There shall be no order as to costs

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Transactions in the purchase and sale of gold bars entered into by the assessee, A, and her late husband R - Transaction not constituted a business or an adventure in nature of trade

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Trust deed - deed of relinquishment - income that accrued or arose to the trustees from the trust properties - Exemption u/s. 4(3)(i)

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Error apparent from the record - rectification -orders of rectification passed by the respondent and the notices of demand issued in pursuance thereof, are, illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 3 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in its view that the AAC had competence to alter the finding of the ITO to the effect that the portion of income in dispute is an undisclosed income from a known source to a finding that it is undisclosed income from undisclosed source - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order passed by the ITO u/s. 23A(1) of the IT Act, 1922, as it stood at the material time, was vitiated by reason of the fact that the ITO had not issued to the assessee a notice under the second proviso to s. 23A(1) before passing the said order - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  High Court held that the IT authorities could not impose tax until the claim of Bihar estate as vesting of Estate was decided as the suit was pending - order of HC is set aside - It is not possible to hold that the estate of Bettiah has escheated to the State of Bihar. It is obvious that in case of such escheat there can be no assessment to income-tax. The position will be clarified after the appeal disposed of

  ---

1234