Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (8) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 90 of 90 Records
-
1972 (8) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Esatte duty Act - Unequal partition of HUF, karta takes lesser share than his entitlement - whether there is a gift and there is liability to Estate Duty Act - Whether the sum representing the difference between the value of a share in the family properties and the value of the properties actually allotted to R. Bheema Naidu at the partition of the family properties within 2 years prior to the death of the deceased has been rightly included in the estate as property deemed to pass on the death of the deceased within the meaning of section 9(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, read with section 27 and Explanation 2 to section 2(15) - view of the Tribunal is upholded and answer the reference in the affirmative and against the accountable persons
-
1972 (8) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Tribunal cannot deal with a subject-matter which has been considered by the assessing authority but not challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the assessee, in an appeal before the Tribunal in relation to other items of dispute. It will be a fortiori a case where an assessee did not seek to challenge a particular item before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Tribunal at the original stage but seeks to challenge the same at a later stage by way of additional grounds. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal is justified in refusing to excuse the delay in filing the additional grounds of appeal dealing with a new subject-matter
-
1972 (8) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee takes over business of the predecessor - assessee was carrying on several other businesses which it had taken over - assessee-company was entitled to relief under section 25(3); as such, the judgment of the High Court has to be confirmed
-
1972 (8) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Reopening of assessment - notice for filing return - after the complete partition of the family - Excess Profits Tax Officer cannot initiate proceedings under s. 13 and 15 of Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 - revenue appeal is dismissed
-
1972 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Whether amounts standing in the special reserve account in the books of the assessee-company were deductible in determining the net wealth - Whether amounts standing in the shareholders' accounts as on the respective valuation dates were deductible - Whether amounts out of the debentures of the company were allowable as debts owed by the company
-
1972 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Application of income to discharge a liability incurred not in the course of running the business but a liability undertaken for the purpose of acquiring the sole selling agency right which was indisputably an asset of capital nature - appeal by assessee is dismissed
-
1972 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the sum of Rs. 1,05,074 received by the applicant as compensation from the Government is taxable as income of the applicant or is a capital receipt in its hands - set aside the judgment of the High Court and answer the question referred by the Tribunal in favour of the department
-
1972 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Compensation for relinquishment of interest in partnership - hold that the entire sum of Rs. 35,01,000 received by the assessee was a revenue receipt assessable under section 10
-
1972 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Payment of commission made to the directors was not because of any commercial expediency but for collateral reasons - commission paid to the directors cannot be considered as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and answer the question referred under section 66(2) in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee
-
1972 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of each of these cases the department was right in applying section 44F read with section 2(6A)(c) - Held that the deemed dividend contemplated by section 2(6A)(c) cannot be considered as "income" under section 44F - we agree with the High Court that section 44F is inapplicable to the facts of the assessee's case
|
|