Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 64 of 64 Records
-
1977 (5) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appeal Against Assessment, Registration Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ments in this reference. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee, sought to contend that because the compensation was received in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1952-53, in which no business was done, the amount could not be treated as business income. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, AIR 1966 SC 841. This contention also was not raised before the Tribunal, and cannot, therefore, be permitted to be urged for the first time in this reference. For the reasons stated above, the second point also has to be answered in the negative. When points 1 and 2 are answered in the negative, it follows that the third point also has to be answered in the negative. In the result, we answer the first question referred to this court in the negative and the second question in the affirmative. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1977 (5) TMI 3 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Donor From Subject, Estate Duty Gift, Subject Matter ... ... ... ... ..... to those rights, i.e.. rights subject to which the gift is made or rights shorn of which the property is gifted, then in such cases the subject-matter of the gift shall not be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased donor. The principle is that by retaining something which he has never given, a donor does not bring himself within the mischief of that section, nor would the provisions of the section be attracted because of some benefit accruing to the donor on account of what was retained by him. It was conceded on behalf of the revenue that this decision completely clinches the issue in favour of the assessee and that, accordingly, the second question referred to us for our opinion will have to be answered in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us as under Question No. 1. In the affirmative. Question No. 2. In the negative. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1977 (5) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business, Business Expenditure, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... were in connection with the acquisition of investment, i.e., shares, etc., and were, therefore, capital expenses. On appeal, the AAC, for some reason which is not apparent, did not deal with this item. However, on further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance observing that the disallowance was regarding expenses on investments, that it was submitted by the learned counsel that the assessee-company was a dealer in shares and, as such, expenses on investments and shares should have been allowed as revenue expenses, that the assessee, however, was unable to produce any evidence to show that it was a dealer in shares, and that there was nothing to establish that the assessee-company was dealing in shares and as such the disallowance was fully justified. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the questions under consideration in the affirmative. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1977 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Trust - trustees are liable to be assessed under section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act in the status of an ' individual - Tribunal was not right in holding that the provisions of section 3 of should not be considered as subject to the provisions of section 21 - Revenue's appeals are accordingly dismissed
|