Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 41 to 60 of 73 Records

• 1967 (1) TMI 33
  

  Kartas of HUF joining as partners and total number of persons including adult members of the families exceeding twenty - registration was rightly refused to the firm on the ground that it violated the provisions of section 4 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 32
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of notice served under section 34(1)(a) for the assessment year 1949-50 on 29th March, 1958.
  2. Whether the reassessment proceedings under section 34 for the assessment year 1949-50 are barred by limitation.
  
  Analysis:
  Issue 1: The notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act was sent for service on the assessee on 29th March, 1958. The process-server presented the notice to the assessee, who refused to accept it. The process-server then affixed the notice at the residence of the assessee on 29th March, 1958. The Income-tax Officer held that the notice was duly served, a view upheld by all superior income-tax authorities. The petitioner contended that the notice was not properly served as per the requirements of rule 17 of Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the court held that the service was valid, considering the refusal by the assessee to accept the notice and the subsequent affixture after reasonable attempts to locate the assessee.
  
  Issue 2: The petitioner argued that the affixture of the notice was not due to the refusal by the assessee but because he could not be found, invoking rule 17 of Order 5. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the affixture was connected to the refusal by the assessee on 25th March, 1958. The court also dismissed the petitioner's reliance on rule 20 of Order 5 for substituted service, as there was no evidence of an order for such service. Consequently, the court answered the first question in the affirmative, stating that the notice was properly served, and the second question in the negative, indicating that the reassessment proceedings were not barred by limitation. The petitioner was directed to pay costs to the respondents.

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 31
  

  Assessee a company, fixed remuneration of two directors, who were also share holders of the company by passing resolution - in view of the provisions of s. 10(4A) the remuneration allowed by the Tribunal to directors is not an allowable business expenditure u/s 10(2)(xv)

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 30
  

  Mysore Income Tax Act - Assets distributed on partition of HUF. Three coparceners and widow daughter of karta firmed a partnership and carry on the same business. The assessee (undivided family) claimed exemption u/s 25(3) of the Act contending there is a discontinuance of the business originally carried on by the undivided family - assessee is entitled to exemption

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 29
  
  Issues:
  1. Assessment of foreign income on accrual basis under section 4(1)(b)(ii).
  2. Determination of remittance of Rs. 15,000 of the assessee's foreign income to India.
  3. Inclusion of the sum of Rs. 4,500, originally allowed as a statutory deduction, in the total foreign income chargeable to tax.
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court of Madras addressed the issue of the assessment of foreign income on an accrual basis under section 4(1)(b)(ii). The assessee, a working partner in two firms, was assessed as an individual and a resident for the assessment year 1955-56. The total foreign income, including salary and profits, was assessed at Rs. 10,253 after deducting the statutory allowance. The court found that the assessment was correctly based on the accrual basis, and the controversy centered on the grant of the statutory allowance under the third proviso to section 4(1).
  
  Regarding the determination of the remittance of Rs. 15,000 of the assessee's foreign income to India, the court analyzed the book entries and transactions between the firms involved. The court concluded that although no cash was physically transmitted, the credit entry in the accounts allowed the assessee to operate on and draw the amount, constituting a remittance. The court cited legal precedents to support the view that a transfer by book entries could result in a remittance, even without the physical transfer of cash.
  
  In the context of including the sum of Rs. 4,500 in the total foreign income chargeable to tax, the court examined the application of the third proviso to section 4(1). The court held that the revenue's reliance on the receipt of Rs. 15,000 to deny the benefit of the statutory allowance was not sustainable. The court emphasized that the amount brought into the taxable territories should be referable to income accrued during the accounting year and that the revenue failed to rebut the presumption that the remittance was from a fund that had already suffered tax.
  
  Ultimately, the court rephrased the question at issue and ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the revenue could not rely on the receipt of Rs. 15,000 to exclude the assessee from the statutory allowance entitled under the third proviso to section 4(1). The court awarded costs and counsel's fee in favor of the assessee.

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 28
  

  Assessee received Rs. 20,000 as arbitration fee - sum received was a casual and non-recurring item of income which cannot be related to the exercise of any profession, vocation or occupation by the assessee- sum of Rs. 20,000 received by the assessee as remuneration was not revenue income

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 27
  

  Whether the assessee is entitled to the allowance of the entire expenses incurred u/s 10, on foot that no part of the overhead expenses and interest on borrowed capital is attributable to Govt. securities under the Explanation to section 8 - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 26
  
  The High Court of Allahabad ruled that a partner's share income from a firm can be assessed in the partner's hands before the firm's assessment is completed. The decision was based on previous court rulings. The court answered the question in favor of the tax department.

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 25
  

  Remuneration paid to the directors - in fact it was the HUF and not the company, which was in existence. Any expenses incurred over the members of the HUF could not be added to the expenditure made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the company - hence it is not a permissible deduction u/s 10(2)(xv)

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 24
  

  Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. 7,89,611 shown in the balance-sheet as asset and said to have been paid as bonus to the employees for the year 1952-53 was a permissible deduction under the Wealth-tax Act - Held, yes

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 23
  

  IT Act 1961 - IT Act 1922 - petitioner filed a return of his income in consequence of a notice under s. 22(2) of the IT Act, 1922 - ITO issued a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1961-62 - held that notice u/s 148 and entire proceedings taken by ITO consequent to that notice were without jurisdiction

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 22
  
  Issues: Assessment of minor's income for additional surcharge under the Income-tax Act, 1922; Rectification of mistake under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922; Power of the court to compel rectification beyond the prescribed time limit.
  
  Assessment of Minor's Income: The petitioner, assessed for the year 1958-59, had his minor son's income from two partnership firms included in his total income and taxed under section 16(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. An additional surcharge at 15% was levied on this income, treated as unearned income under the Finance Act, 1958. However, subsequent judicial decisions clarified that the minor's income was only liable to a 5% surcharge, not 15%.
  
  Rectification of Mistake: The petitioner sought rectification of this mistake under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The First Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax declined to revise the assessment order, citing it as final and out of time for rectification. The court analyzed the power of rectification under section 35, emphasizing that the mistake should be apparent from the record. Referring to relevant case laws, the court noted that the mistake in this case was rectifiable under section 35 as it was based on a wrong view of the law.
  
  Compelling Rectification Beyond Time Limit: The Revenue argued that no mandamus could compel rectification beyond the period allowed for rectification under section 35. However, the court referred to a case under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act where a direction for rectification was given even after the expiration of the limitation period. The court discussed the language of section 35 and opined that it does not necessarily impose a limitation on the court's power to compel rectification beyond the prescribed time limit. Ultimately, the court allowed one writ petition to quash the incorrect assessment order regarding the minor's income, leading to the cancellation of both the First Income-tax Officer's and the Commissioner of Income-tax's orders, while dismissing another petition.
  
  In conclusion, the court's judgment rectified the incorrect assessment of the minor's income for additional surcharge, clarified the scope of rectification under section 35, and discussed the court's power to compel rectification beyond the prescribed time limit under the Income-tax Act, 1922.

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 21
  

  Capital recipt - contract cannot possibly be treated as a trading contract entered into in the ordinary course of business and must be taken to be a source which was certainly of an enduring value, which yielded income to the assessee - compensation in respect thereof must be treated as capital receipt

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 20
  

  On the basis of High Court`s order the assessment of assessee were modified and refund was given - assessee claimed interest on the entire refund amount - he was granted interest on refund for the period which was subject matter of reference before the High Court - against this the assessee filed a writ petition - Petition dismissed

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 19
  

  Assessee received payment of Rs. 32,218 in the relevant previous year on account of difference in rates in respect of goods supplied during the war years - Where a receipt is correlated to and arises out of commercial transactions between the parties, the receipt related back to the year of account when the transaction took place, irrespective of the year when the money was received

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 18
  

  Development rebate - In a hiring out business, the installation of a plant or machinery can only be by placing it in position for service or sue - the moment the assessee placed the kolhus in his show room and actually hired them out, the statutory requirement for claiming development rebate would be satisfied

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 17
  

  Foreign income - there is no prohibition or restriction in force throughout the period subsequent to the assessment years - there is no proof that the assessee has utilised his share of income for the two years or could have utilised the same for any expenditure actually incurred in Ceylon - there is no constructive remittance into the taxable territories of any part of his foreign income - explanation to section 45 is therefore not attracted

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 16
  

  Whether the Commissioner, in issuing the authorisations, can be said to have entertained such reasonable belief as is required by the first sub-s. of s. 132 - no case has been made out of any failure to comply with the provisions of s. 132 or of any disobedience or disregard thereof either in the matter of the issue of authorisations for search or seizure or in the matter of actual searches and seizures of documents

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 15
  

  Ceylon Income Tax Ordinance, 1932 - identical amount will be assessed in each country by applying its own laws - Then that country which charges income in excess of the amount allowed is required to allow an abatement 'equal to the lower of the amounts of tax attributable to such excess in either country - 'tax attributable' in the articles is the gross tax and not the tax arrived at after deducting the reliefs permissible under the laws of a particular country

  ---

• 1967 (1) TMI 14
  
  The High Court of Madras dismissed a petition for prohibition regarding the payment of advance tax instalment based on an estimate sent after the due date. The court held that the estimate must be sent before the due date for the assessee to pay the tax in accordance with it. The petition was dismissed with costs.

  ---

1234