Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1972 1972 (6) 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 48 of 48 Records

• 1972 (6) TMI 8
  

  Whether the refusal to grant registration to the assessee-firm on the basis of the document dated October 1, 1961, was justified - Tribunal should have gone into the question as to whether the partnership was genuine and whether the partnership deed produced evidenced such a genuine partnership. Its disposal of the appeal on the ground that the partnership deed as such is invalid cannot be accepted. We have to, therefore, answer the reference technically in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The result is that the Tribunal has to reconsider the matter afresh and dispose of the same after giving a finding on the question as to the genuineness of the partnership and considering the document in the light of its said finding

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 7
  

  Assessee paid sums totalling Rs. 21,600 to sixteen individuals who were prospective bidders at the auction in order to prevent them from competing with the petitioners at the auction - assessee was entitled to deduct as revenue expenditure the said sum of Rs. 21,600

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 6
  

  Whether in computing the assessed share of profit from the firm, depreciation on the building owned by the assessee, in which the business of the firm was run, was an admissible deduction – section 37 is in the same terms as the provisions contained in section 10(2)(xv) of the Act of 1922 and the decisions on section 10(2)(xv) of the Act of 1922 have a direct bearing on the interpretation of section 37(1) - held that, there is nothing which precludes the application of sections 30 to 37 to a partner's share income from the firm - in computing the assessee's share of profit from the firm, New Taj Mahal Hotel, Hyderabad, the depreciation on the building owned by the assessee in which the business of the firm was run was an admissible deduction

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 5
  

  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to the grant of registration for the assessment year 1963-64 under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – held that, Tribunal was right in holding that the rejection of the application for registration cannot be sustained

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 4
  

  Whether the assessment of the income of the house property and of the business of Palaniappa Match Works for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61 in the hands of the assessee in the status of an individual is correct in law - held that, where a coparcener, having a wife and two minor daughters and no son, receives his share of joint family properties on partition, such property in the hands of the coparcener belongs to the Hindu undivided family of himself, his wife and minor daughters and cannot be assessed as his individual property for the purpose of wealth-tax

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 3
  

  Assessee is a firm of four partners carrying on business in Ceylon in pawn-broking and money-lending. All the four partners are residing in India – firm appointed a power of attorney to act as agent to conduct business in Ceylon. There was no evidence of control or management - Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee should be assessed as a 'non-resident' - since there was no evidence that the assessee in any way controlled the business, it was liable to be assessed as a non-resident – question is answered in affirmative and against the revenue

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 2
  

  Depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Partnership between the assessee (who became the absolute owner of the capital, deposits, outstandings and other properties in three Burmah Shell agencies) and working partners to carry on business - working partners have only a right to share the profits or loss of the partnership business and they have no right or claim against the partnership assets – held that, it is the firm which is entitled to depreciation on these assets, not the assessee

  ---

• 1972 (6) TMI 1
  

  Application for refund - petition was accordingly never barred by the law of limitation as submitted on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners are entitled to repayment of Rs.1,30,845.40 which is now admittedly the sum which has been retained by the respondents and is liable to be refunded

  ---

123