9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 81 to 100 of 991 Records Search Text: Behari lal |
| Search Results |
| Acts / Rules (1) Articles (4) Case-Laws (972) Circulars (3) Forum (1) News (2) Notifications (8) |
|
1918 (12) TMI 3 - PRIVY COUNCIL The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the District Judge was restored. The judgment emphasized the necessity of a bona fide total surrender by a Hindu widow for the alienation to be valid and rejected the applicability of estoppel or ratification in this case. The plaintiff was awarded costs in the court below and before the Board.
1918 (12) TMI 4 - PRIVY COUNCIL The High Court held that the plaintiff, a reversionary heir, was not estopped from challenging the deed executed by Marakammal in favor of Ramasami Gounden. The deed was deemed a gift, not for consideration, and did not constitute a valid alienation for necessity. The plaintiff's actions did not amount to ratification, and the appeal was allowed, restoring the District Judge's decree in favor of the appellant.
1984 (7) TMI 55 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court The court dismissed the Wealth-tax cases, emphasizing the importance of making quasi-judicial orders within the statutory period, regardless of the communication date to the assessee. The issues regarding disputed kist and interest as assets, inclusion of civil court-awarded interest in net wealth, and assessment order validity concerning the limitation period were resolved against the assessee based on previous decisions, leading to the dismissal of the cases.
1949 (12) TMI 39 - FEDERAL COURT The Federal Court corrected a mistake in the High Court's judgment regarding inheritance rights, ruling in favor of the half-sister's equal rights to inheritance under the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929. Despite the High Court's dismissal of a review petition, the claimant was granted leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The Federal Court rectified the error, declaring the appellant entitled to all properties, emphasizing the importance of prompt error correction to prevent unnecessary appeals and expenses. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant and awarded costs for the appeal.
1972 (5) TMI 61 - Supreme Court The appeals challenging the constitutionality of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the validity of the subsequent Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which retrospectively validated actions under the 1958 Act. The Court found that the 1971 Act addressed concerns of discrimination and unguided discretion present in the earlier legislation, providing a single, non-discriminatory procedure for evictions. The Court concluded that the 1971 Act was constitutionally valid, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
2001 (1) TMI 212 - ITAT BOMBAY-F The Department's appeal against the CIT(A) order deleting interest charged under ss. 234A and 234B for asst. yr. 1996-97 was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) decision, ruling that interest can only be charged on returned income, not assessed income, based on Supreme Court and Patna High Court precedents.
2000 (11) TMI 307 - ITAT RAJKOT The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to allow deduction under s. 80-I on gross profits without reducing it by deduction under s. 80HHA for the asst. yr. 1990-91. The Department's appeal was dismissed.
1992 (3) TMI 161 - ITAT PUNE The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the concealment of income related to the excise duty refund, deeming it as income under section 41(1) for the assessment year 1987-88. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the excise refund was disclosed adequately and emphasized the duty of the assessee to disclose material facts. The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty was upheld without addressing the point of limitation during the proceedings.
1989 (5) TMI 111 - ITAT DELHI-D The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to pass the assessment order within the statutory time limit, dismissing the assessee's challenge based on the expiry of the limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of the notice under sec. 148 in granting jurisdiction to the ITO to assess the income of the assessee. Referring to relevant legal provisions and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order made by the ITO was valid as it was within the prescribed time limit under sec. 153(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act.
1985 (8) TMI 67 - PATNA High Court The court held that the limitation provision under section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requires only the issuance of a notice within the prescribed period, not its actual service on the assessee. It ruled that the assessment for the year 1961-62 was not barred by limitation as the notice was issued within the time limit. Additionally, the court found that the Tribunal erred in canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(a) for the same assessment year. The judgment favored the Revenue, and costs were awarded to the Revenue.
1978 (4) TMI 106 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A The ITAT partially allowed the appeal filed by the firm regarding the addition to trading results, directing the Income Tax Officer to modify the addition in respect of gross profit. It estimated turnover at Rs. 1 lac and gross profit rate at 27.5%. The ITAT fully allowed the appeal of the partner, Gurcharan, concerning income from undisclosed sources, emphasizing the principle that the same amount cannot be taxed twice under different provisions of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remitted back for reassessment, stressing the importance of proper inquiries and adherence to taxation principles.
1978 (3) TMI 217 - Supreme Court The Supreme Court held that an order initiating contempt proceedings is not appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court clarified that an appeal to the Supreme Court as a matter of right is only permissible if it pertains to the High Court's jurisdiction to punish for contempt, not merely the initiation of proceedings. The judgment emphasized that for an order to be appealable under Section 19, it must conclusively decide a substantive issue impacting the parties' rights. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that orders initiating contempt proceedings without substantive decisions are not subject to appeal under Section 19.
1970 (8) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA High Court The court held that the sums received by the assessee for the relevant years were trading receipts and should be included in the total income. The Tribunal's decision to exclude these amounts was deemed unjustified, ruling in favor of the revenue. The court did not make any order regarding costs.
1911 (4) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT The court found that a conspiracy to wage war against His Majesty the King-Emperor had been proved, but clarified that it did not pose a serious menace to the constitution or stability of authority in India. Certain accused were discharged or acquitted due to jurisdictional issues, lack of evidence, or mental incapacity. The evidence of conspiracy, including oral, documentary, and confessions, required corroboration. The court emphasized the need for reliable testimonies and found insufficient evidence connecting various dacoities and seduction of soldiers to the conspiracy. Convicted accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, while others were acquitted.
2012 (2) TMI 742 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT The HC dismissed the review application, confirming it lacked jurisdiction to evict tenants from attached properties under the Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record in its previous order, thus rejecting the Custodian's arguments. The jurisdiction over eviction matters was determined to lie with the Rent Court, not the HC, preserving tenant rights despite property attachment. The court concluded that the Special Court (TORTS) Act did not override tenant rights, and the review application was denied.
1974 (1) TMI 1 - ALLAHABAD High Court The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was not applicable to the case involving a gifted amount of Rs. 35,000. The court resolved a conflict between Division Benches, referred the matter to a Full Bench for analysis, and concluded that the donor had excluded himself from the benefit of the gifted property. By analyzing possession, enjoyment, and Supreme Court judgments, the court determined that the gifted amount was not liable to estate duty based on established legal principles.
1928 (4) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT The Subordinate Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming the validity of the sale of pledged jewels in January 1926 to recover a debt owed by the defendant. The Judge held that the plaintiff had the discretion to sell the pledge at any time and was not obligated to sell within a specific timeframe after notice. The Court emphasized the pawnee's discretionary power in selling the pledge for debt recovery, rejecting the defendant's claim for credit based on an earlier hypothetical sale date in September 1924. The judgment also dismissed the defendant's plea regarding interest calculation, awarding the plaintiff the principal amount with costs.
1986 (7) TMI 363 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The revision filed by the assessee against the Sales Tax Tribunal's judgment was dismissed by the court. The rejection of the assessee's books of account was upheld due to the inability to verify cash during a survey, which raised suspicion. However, as there was no evidence of excessive turnover, the court ruled in favor of the Sales Tax Tribunal.
1957 (3) TMI 57 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The court ruled that the deposits of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 15,000 in a firm's account, arranged by a partner in the names of his wife and father-in-law, were not taxable income of the firm for the assessment year. The court found that the partner had provided the money, establishing his ownership of the funds, which did not belong to the firm. Therefore, the deposits were not considered as profits of the firm, and the court rejected the claim that the deposits were taxable income. The court also awarded costs of Rs. 200 to the assessee.
1950 (9) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT The judgment concluded that a post card, accompanied by court-fee labels, constituted sufficient authorization for counsel to file an appeal under Order 3, Rule 4, Civil P.C. The court acknowledged the validity of the authorization, confirming that the appeal was properly presented and the requisite court-fee payment was duly made.
|
