Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (4) 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 80 of 106 Records

• 1967 (4) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 74 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
  

  Investigation of company’s affairs in other cases

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... on the other hand, that the principle does not apply to the present case because nobody purported to act for the company and there is nothing to ratify. The Board of Trade claimed the statutory power to sue in the name of the company which, in my judgment, they did not possess as against the defendant bank, and it is submitted the bank is, therefore, entitled to have the action stayed and one cannot treat the Board of Trade as simply dropping out, leaving this an action brought by the board s solicitor on behalf of the company but without authority. However, the action is an action brought in the name of the plaintiff company the company and not. the Board of Trade are the plaintiff, and it is so brought without authority. It seems to me that the case does fall within the principle and, accordingly, there being a winding-up petition pending, I bought to adjourn this matter until after the hearing of that petition. I will hear counsel as to the length of any such adjournment.

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  

  Natural justice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... petition, before the Central Government, was also rejected by the order dated 28th March, 1963. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition impugning the aforesaid three orders. In view of my conclusion as to violation of the demands of natural justice, the three impugned orders cannot be sustained. 6. Mr. Shankar, learned Counsel for the respondents, however, raised an objection that the petitioner failed to avail himself of the alternative remedy available to him and that the petition should be rejected on the ground. His contention was that the petitioner should have deposited the Government dues and got his appeal heard and disposed of on merits. For the reasons given in M/s. Gupta Tobacco Company v. Collector of Central Excise (C.W. 156-D of 1963) decided on 19th April, 1967, this contention of Mr. Shankar must be repelled. 7. In the result, this petition succeeds so that the three impugned orders are quashed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 43 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  

  Cross examination of Chemical Examiner

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ack of the learned Counsel was based on denial of natural justice as discussed in the earlier part of the judgment. In my opinion, denial of an opportunity to examine the Chemical Examiner constitutes such violation of natural justice as will entail the setting aside of the impugned orders. The petitioner was entitled to examine the Chemical Examiner to find out the basis of his report and also the treatment according to the sample between the period it was taken and analysed. For this reason, the three main orders have to be quashed. 5. Mr. Shankar, learned Counsel for the respondents raised an objection that the petitioner failed to avail of alternative remedy, and therefore, the petition should not be entertained. For the reasons given in M/s. Gupta Tobacco Co. v. Collector, Central Excise (C.W. 156-D/1963) petition on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. 6. The petition, therefore, succeeds and the three impugned orders are quashed, with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gift of ₹ 9,00,000 should be regarded as having been made within two years of the death of the deceased and liable to estate duty?

  Held that:- In the facts and circumstances of the case, the gift of ₹ 9,00,000 should be regarded as having been made within two years of the death of the deceased and was liable to estate duty. We accordingly hold that the judgment of the High Court should be set aside and the question referred to the High Court should be answered against the respondent and in favour of the Controller of Estate Duty. Appeal alowed.

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 41 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Estate duty Act - Mica mining lease – valuation of mines - whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in adopting a period of 8 years as the basis for the valuation of the mines instead of four years - Held, no - proper valuation it should adopt is four years

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 40 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Expenditure-tax Act - Ejusdem Generis - jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 16 of the Expenditure-tax Act proposing to reopen the previous assessments - ground for reopening the prior assessments is that the assessee omitted or failed to disclose the expenditure of his wife who was his dependant - wife had her own sources of income and had filed separate returns, the officer had jurisdiction to reopen the assessments

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - assessee, is a shareholder - shares renounced - held that it will be a gift for the purpose of assessment to gift-tax

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Income from two sources of business, a cinema business and a labour contract business, was considered for the purpose of assessment, for all the years except the assessment year 1962-63, when the labour contract business was discontinued - petitioner did not produce any books of account in respect of either business - estimated the income from each source - petitioner's appeal dismissed

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act, 1958 - petitioner made a gift of a certain extent of land to his daughter and grandchildren - valuation for the land

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 36 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Notice issued by the ITO u/s 148 - jurisdiction -ITO must be confined to the reasons given by him to support the validity of his action under clause (a) of section 147

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Returns filed by the assessee - jurisdiction of revenue to complete the assessments

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... isions in the series of cases reported in 49 I.T.R. lends support to the view that the application of the proviso is linked only to persons who are not intimately connected with the proceedings. We have already held that the petitioner in this case is a person who cannot be characterised as an utter stranger to the earlier proceedings prosecuted by his uncle Meyappa on the other hand, his uncle did have the capacity at that time to represent him and therefore, such proceedings do have a nexus to the affairs of the assessee and such intimate connection thus established would enable the revenue to exercise jurisdiction under the proviso. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proviso is violative of article 14 and that this is the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas. In this view, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs, one set. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Writ petitions dismissed

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 34 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Development rebate - section 10(2)(vib)

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e will be entitled to costs of this reference. Advocate s fee Rs 250. R. C. No. 15 of 1964 This is also a reference made to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the application of the assessee. The question for decision is identical as that arising in the above R.C. No. 8 of 1964. In this case, also, the assessee made the necessary entries before the completion of the assessment by the Income-tax Officer but subsequent to the last day of the accounting year. The claim for rebate was disallowed by the authorities on the ground that the relevant entries were not made during the accounting year. But as the entries have been made before the completion of the assessment, following our decision in the above R.C. No. 8 of 1964, we hold that, the assessee is entitled to relief towards development rebate claimed by him. We accordingly answer this question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs of this reference. Advocate s fee Rs. 150

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Madras Agricultural Income Tax Act - Whether the word `person` has been defined so as to include an association of individuals

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Activities of the assessee on the New York Cotton Market - whether constituted `business` within the meaning of section 2(4) of the IT Act, 1922, and the income therefrom taxable - Held, no

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee carried on the business of manufacture and sale of bidis under the trade marks and trade names of `P` and `D` trade marks were his exclusive properties - by means of a registered deed of agreement, he transferred his interest in the business along with the goodwill as well as the stock-in-trade - payment received by the assessee under the terms of the agreement, is a revenue receipt

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 30 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Assessees are the trustees - WTO held that the shares of the beneficiaries were not determinate and, therefore, the trustees were liable for assessment on the whole of the wealth, and that the section 21(4) of the WT Act were clearly applicable - Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 21(4) of the WT Act did not apply

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 29 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Gift Tax Act - Gifts by karta and coparcener of HUF in favour of their respective sons - gift was not valid

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  New and separate unit of company formed with the object of establishing industrial undertaking in India. Company not actually engaged in industrial undertaking setting up new unit - company can not claim exemption u/s 5(1)(xxi) r/w 45(d)

  ---

• 1967 (4) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee`s wife purchased share of D out of funds provided by assessee. D sold the concern to B and assessee got the shares of B in lieu of shares of D - held that dividend income, on shares of the B, belonging to the assessee`s wife is assessable in the hands of the assessee under s. 16(3)(a)(iii)

  ---

123456