Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1969 1969 (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 81 to 100 of 112 Records

• 1969 (2) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Partnership firm - registration u/s 26A of the IT Act, 1922

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d the Government. Such contracts are authorised by section 18. The contracts themselves, by their preambles, make it clear that the right to exploit is not only available to the party directly contracting with the Government but also to their assigns. Far from the exploitation of the forest contracts by the firm which were taken in the names of individual partners being illegal, it is authorised by and also within the contemplation of such contracts. Clause 2 of the agreement, to which specific reference has been made, no doubt, prohibits the contractor from disposing of or subletting the right of exploitation or any part thereof without the written permission of the specified officer. But the infringement of this clause may, at best only amount to a breach of contract, not an illegality from the standpoint of the provisions of the Forest Act. The question in each of these references is answered in favour of the assessee with costs in each. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 also in each.

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Insurance Company paid a sum to assessee for damage to green leaf tea by Hail Storm - money paid by insurance company should be treated as agricultural income exempt from taxation u/s 4(3)(viii) of IT Act, 1922

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Assessments - status - association of persons

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hat the said decree was a joint decree and the maintenance was not on the basis of the shares for each of the plaintiffs we are of the opinion that the income was received on behalf of the persons whose shares were indeterminate. As such, the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, applies. In that view of the matter the assessees may be deemed to be an association of persons even though they are not an association of persons in fact. Some argument was advanced by Mr. B. L. Pal, learned advocate for the revenue, to the effect that in fact also the assessees associated inasmuch as by joining in the suit they associated in creating this income. In the view we have taken of the matter we do not think it necessary to consider this aspect of the matter. In the above view of the matter the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. DEB J.-I agree.

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 29 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Notice u/s 148 of IT Act, 1961 for reopening of assessment - list of the Directorate of Inspection was not irrelevant for the purpose of formation of the belief by the ITO u/s 147 - ITO had himself formed the opinion that the petitioner`s income had prima facie escaped assessment, and had not abdicated his jurisdiction to the Directorate of Inspection

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Loss of goods-in-transit due to theft - allowable business loss u/s 10(1)

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ed by personal considerations unconnected with his business. The quantity of watches, as many as 750, surely showed that he was carrying them to his house at the late hour for the purpose of safe keeping. We think that this can be reasonably inferred from the facts and the surrounding circumstances. If policemen waylaid and deprived him of the watches, that was a risk which the transit of the watches for safe keeping necessarily or incidentally involved. In our view, therefore, the transit of the watches by the assessee from his business premises to his residence was a business operation and the loss of the watches in the course of the transit by theft was in that sense incidental to the carrying on of the business in watches. It is not possible to accept the revenue s contention that the loss was totally unccnnected with the assessee s trade or was in no way incidental to the trade. We answer the question referred to us against the revenue with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Development rebate - section 10(2)(vib) of the IT Act, 1922

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... oth, then the assessee would be entitled to relief for development rebate as claimed. In the ultimate analysis and after noticing the features of the instant case and after weighing the combined efforts of the doctor, we are unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the revenue and the Tribunal. Though, prima facie, the finding is a question of fact, yet the question whether an activity is a business or not under the Indian Income-tax Act as defined in section 2(4), is undoubtedly a question of law and this court is entitled to set aside the same, if the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is unreasonable (see Edwards v. Bairstow and Harrison). We find that the plant installed having been admittedly used wholly for the purpose of the combined activities of the assessee, which we characterise as a business, the assessee is entitled to the development rebate as claimed. We answer the question in the negative but in favour of the assessee with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Partnership - registration - firm was the owner of the lorries and operating them, the partnership cannot be regarded as illegal merely because the permits in regard to them stood in the names of their original owners - refusal of renewal of registration under section 26A is not justified

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Business of "minor" carried by guardian - Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the income of the assessees was liable to be assessed under section 12 and not under section 10 - Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the income of the assessee was unearned income and liable to be assessed as such

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Income from partnership property - Firm's property was transferred to the partners of the firm in their profit sharing proportions - can the income from property be taxed in the hands of the firm - property of the firm as envisaged in section 14 of the Partnership Act is a part of the assets of the firm

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Assessee company had created a reserve against the possible liability that may arise due to guaranteeing of debts of subsidiary company - the subsidiary company went into liquidation - held that, this reserve is excludible in the computation of commercial profits for the purpose of section 23A

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 22 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on the best judgment basis smacks of arbitrariness so that the assessment orders may be quashed - Held, yes - orders are quashed

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  ITO initiated reassessment proceedings and assessed the coparcener's remuneration as Managing Director in the hands of the HUF - primary facts relating to the income were known to the Income Tax Officer - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessment proceedings instituted under section 34(1)(a) were barred by limitation - yes

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Capital gains - liquidation - profit or gain arising from the sale, exchange, relinquishment or transfer of the capital asset - assessability as capital gains - applicability of provisions of s. 12B(1)

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Estate Duty Act, 1953 - value of the estate - interpretation of Explanation 2 to section 2(15) read with section 9 as also section 27

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Profit on sale - Where the trunks are cut so that the stumps remain intact and capable of regeneration, receipts from sale of the trunks would be in the nature of income - Assessee's appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Balancing Charge - assessee's argument that the vendor and purchaser were same cannot be accepted. It has now been settled that in taxing a receipt to income-tax, the authorities are concerned with the legal effect or character of the transaction and not the substance of the transaction - Assessee's appeal dismissed

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Inclusion of the share income of the minor in the hands of the assessee by invoking the provisions of s. 16(3) of the Act is valid in law notwithstanding that an assessment is made on the minor represented by his guardian - reassessment made on the assessee under s. 34 of the Act was not valid

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT
  

  The payment of compensation by the assessee to the ex-agents was not by an overriding title created either by act of the parties or by operation of law - hence inclusion made by ITO in total income was justified - Revenue appeal allowed

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Income From Undisclosed Sources - Unexplained Cash Credits - Tribunal was not justified in aggregating the income for the asst. yrs. 1952-53 and 1953-54 for the two years, which it rounded off at Rs. 1,00,000 and apportioned in equal shares in the two years - Revenue's appeal allowed

  ---

• 1969 (2) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Case is remanded for determination of the question whether by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the company to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessement of the company for the three years in question, any income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment or the company has been given excessive depreciation allowance in computing its income

  ---

123456