Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Year: 1969 Page 1 of about 600 results (0.169 seconds)

Apr 22 1969 (HC)

M. Ganapathi Asari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-22-1969

Reported in : [1970]75ITR296(Mad)

..... 66(1) of the income--tax act, 1922, and relates to the assessment years 1949-1950 to 1953-1954 and 1955-1956 and 1956-1957.2. the assessee made returns for these years as an individual. but this status was not accepted by the income-tax officer who included the income of his brothers in his ..... by section 33(2). a commissioner may, if he objects to any order passed by the appellate assistant commissioner under section 31, direct an income-tax officer to appeal to the appellate tribunal against such order. there can be no question that the order appealed against by the commissioner was one ..... authority, as the case may be, was empowered to give under the^ sections mentioned in the proviso. east india corporation ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax was not concerned with section 34 or the second proviso, but had dealt with the question whether a direction under section 34(3) to reassess the ..... reassessment of any person other than the assessee beyond the period of limitation specified in section 34. the scope of the proviso was again. considered in income-tax officer, a ward, sitapur v. murlidhar bhagwan das. it was held that 'any person' in the second proviso must be confined to a ..... to 1953-54 and 1955-56 and 1956-57. but while setting aside the assessments, the appellate assistant commissioner was silent as to what the income-tax officer was to do further. the commissioner filed appeals before the tribunal objecting to the orders of the appellate assistant commissioner on the ground that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1969 (HC)

R.B. Jessaram Fetehchand (Sugar Dept.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-30-1969

Reported in : [1970]75ITR33(Bom)

..... the tribunal. then on an application to this court under section 66(2) the tribunal was required to refer the following three questions under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act; '(1) whether, on the facts of the case, and, in particular, in view of the fact that the sales were at prevailing market there is any evidence for rejecting the ..... or defects, which cannot be reasonably and satisfactorily explained by the assessee. all the other transactions, except the cash transaction, which were verifiable, have been verified and scrutinised by the income-tax officer and there is nothing wrong whatsoever found with them. as to the cash transactions also, the quantity of sugar sold has not been disputed. the rates at which sugar ..... ,440 to the gross profits as shown by the assessee's books of account. the assessee appealed to the appellate assistant commissioner, who disagreed with the view taken by the income-tax officer and deleted the addition of the amount. before the appellate assistant commissioner the assessee produced the sugar market reports for the months of july and august which showed that ..... to supply the addresses of the purchasers on the ground that the sales had been effected through brokers and suggested that the addresses may be obtained through the brokers. the income-tax officer, therefore, summoned a partner of the firm of brokers through whom these transactions were effected. the said broker, however, also was unable to furnish the addresses of the purchasers .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1969 (SC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Manick and Sons

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-14-1969

Reported in : AIR1969SC1122; [1969]74ITR1(SC); (1969)1SCC671; [1969]3SCR708a

..... 53 could not be reopened otherwise than in the manner prescribed by law. the undertaking must therefore be ignored. under section 33(4) of the income-tax act, 1922, the income-tax appellate tribunal may, after giving both parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. the ..... a question of fact on which no reference can be made to the high court under section 66 of the indian income-tax act. the court in that case did not lay down that it is open to the tribunal to make a consolidated assessment of ..... flow from the contentions raised before the tribunal and contemplate an enquiry into matters urged by counsel by the commissioner.10. the decision of this court commissioner of income-tax, madras v. s. nelliappan : [1967]66itr722(sc) on which reliance was placed by counsel for the respondents has little bearing in this case. in s ..... law and fact which arise out of the order of assess ment made by the income-tax officer and the order of the appellate assistant commissioner. it cannot assume powers which are inconsistent with the express provisions of the act or its scheme.6. the tribunal was entitled to enquire whether the source of ..... the cash credits was explained: if it held that they represented capital or income of earlier years, it could exclude them from income liable to be taxed in the year to which the appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1969 (HC)

Padgirwar Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-01-1969

Reported in : [1971]80ITR96(Bom)

..... assessee-firm to shri. v. nagayya in the ordinary course of money-lending business.' 3. the income-tax officer accordingly rejected the assessee's claim of a deduction as a bad debt under section 36(2) of the income-tax act, 1961. a copy of the assessment order forms part of the statement of the case as ..... debt within the meaning of section 36 and as a bad debt was bound to be allowed as a permissible deduction in computing the income. 8. the income-tax appellate tribunal has found in paragraph 5 of the statement of the case that there was no evidence to prove that nagayya was either ..... liability owed by nagayya had become irrecoverable in the accounting year to be treated as a bad debt. in our opinion, the finding of the income-tax authorities and ultimately by the tribunal that the assessee had failed to prove that the amount due had become a bad is essentially a question of ..... liability is or is not reasonably recoverable within a particular period. unless it is proved that this conclusion reached by the assessee was unsupportable, the income-tax authorities would have very limited jurisdiction to interfere with the conclusion of the assessee as to a debt being a bad debt or an irrecoverable debt ..... investment and not a revenue expenditure. the learned counsel for the assessee has relied on a recent decision of the supreme court in commissioner of income-tax v. mysore sugar co. in support of their contention that the amount spent with a view to acquiring goods which were to be sold by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1969 (HC)

Bhogilal H. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Bombay

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-08-1969

Reported in : [1969]74ITR692(Bom)

..... affidavit appears to have been filed in the proceedings commenced against the assessee for the assessment year 1949-50 under section 34 of the indian income-tax act 1922, in respect of the sale of survey no. 148. it was also produced before this court as an annexure to an affidavit ..... they held that the purchase of property in the shape of agricultural lands is ordinarily an investment. in janki ram bahadur ram v. commissioner of income-tax, at page 26, the supreme court after referring to two english authorities in rutledge v. commissioners of inland revenue and commissioners of inland revenue v ..... it appears that the appellate assistant commissioner gave an opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence and the appellate assistant commissioner gave the income-tax officer an opportunity to cross-examine the assessee who had filed an affidavit. both the affidavit and the cross-examination are on the record ..... by the then government of bombay under section 4 and 6 of the land acquisition act in connection with the proceedings for acquisition of about 500 acres of land for the university of gujarat. the income-tax inspector's report dated 17th june, 1957, which was made after the remand order ..... of the tribunal is also pressed into service. the notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act was published in the bombay government gazette on 31st .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1969 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jeskaran Bhuvalka

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-14-1969

Reported in : [1970]76ITR128(AP)

..... came to rs. 3,06,000, was brought into the indian union. this explanation did not satisfy the income-tax officer. he, therefore initiated proceedings under section 34(1)(a) of the income-tax act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the act'), with the prior approval of the commissioner of income-tax with notice dated march 26, 1956, which was served on the assessee on march 28, 1956. in the ..... assessment that was finally made in pursuance of the above notice on february 28, 1957, the income-tax officer included rs. 3,06,000 (in ..... material facts, or, in other words, that lack of full and true disclosure which would entitle action under section 34 of the act.14. thus, we find that in enunciating the basic principles in accordance with which an income-tax officer can invoke his jurisdiction under section 34 all the judges including the majority and the minority are agreed. the difference was ..... fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for that year, or have been under-assessed, or assessed at too low a rate, or have been made the subject of excessive relief tinder the act, or excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed, or (b) notwithstanding .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1969 (SC)

Pandit Lakshmikanta Jha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-19-1969

Reported in : [1970]75ITR790(SC)

..... tribunal referred the following question (as directed by this court) to the high court of patna under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act for opinion :whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of rs. 1,30,785 being the excess of sale proceeds of ..... this court in commissioner of income-tax v. b.m. kharwarsince reported in : [1969]72itr603(sc) c.a. no. 1678 of 1966, decided on august 13, 1968.4. in the present ..... decisions of this court that in taxing a receipt to income-tax the authorities are only concerned with the legal effect or character of the transaction and not the substance of the transaction.3. see the judgment of ..... the petitioner ?2. for some time there was difference of opinion in the high courts on the question whether it is open to the income-tax authorities in proceedings for assessment of tax to discard the legal character of a transaction and to determine 'the substance of a transaction'. but it has now been settled by several ..... case the transaction which gave rise to the receipt sought to be brought to tax was of the nature of sale; and it was not even contended that it was not intended to be a sale. it was argued, however, that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1969 (HC)

Raj NaraIn Agarwala Vs. the Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-23-1969

Reported in : ILR1969Delhi936; [1970]75ITR1(Delhi)

..... .k. kapur, j. (1) the following two questions of law have been referred to this court under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 :- '(1)whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order for the assessment year 1955-56 finally ..... i have already said, was of the view that mohto's case was on all fours with the case at hand. in kalooram govindram v. commissioner of income-tax, (3), mohta's case was overruled by their lordships of the supreme court. in kalooram's case a joint hindu family was carrying on business. that ..... yet only the manner of carry forward in the two provisions is different and both types of deductions could appropriately be termed, as was done by the income-tax officer. as carry forward losses. whether or nto the conditions prescribed by section 24(2) for the carry forward of the business losses other than unabsorbed ..... of rs. 1,76,691.00 is a carried forward loss. even in the case of unabsorbed depreciation it could have legitimately been described by the income-tax officer as carried forward loss. unabsorbed depreciation is one of the items to be deducted in computing the profits under section 10(2). unabsorbed depreciation is ..... year under reference. the assessed claimed depreciation allowance on both the factories on the basis of rupees six lacs as their written down value but the income- tax officer decided that the written down value of the factories must be same as it was in the hands of the dissolved firm. the assessed also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1969 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi and Rajasthan, New Delhi Vs. the ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-10-1969

Reported in : ILR1970Delhi144

..... that loss resulting from embezzlement by an employee or agent in a business is admissible as a deduction under section 10(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, if it arises out of the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. (7) considering the nature of the ..... balance of the profits or gains of the appellants' trade for the year 1927 on which they were chargeable to tax for the year 1928-29 under sch. d of the income-tax act, 1918. the appellants contented that the amount was a capital receipt and ought nto to be reckoned as forming ..... we shall now consider. (12) on behalf of the revenue, mr. kirpal referred us to the judgment of the supreme court in commissioner of income-tax excess profits tax, bombay city v. shamsher printing press . in that case the respondent firm had for the purpose of its business a printing press. the premises ..... authorities with regard to losses, by embezzlement, specifically referred to the practice in england as stated by w.e. snelling in the dictionary of income-tax and super-tax practice, 5th edn. 1923 page 231. as would appear from page 372 of the report in venkatachalapathy lyer's case the learned judges ..... part of the profits arising from the carrying on of their trade. the crown said that the 'amount was a trade receipt which ought to be included in the computation of the appellants' profits or gains for income-tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1969 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Azad Bharat Finance Co.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-29-1969

Reported in : [1970]75ITR40(Delhi)

..... c.j. in the case of gokuldas harivallabhdas correctly express the character of proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the indian income-tax act.'12. the calcutta high court approved the decision of the gujarat high court in commissioner of income-tax v. l.h. vora : [1965]56itr126(guj) . vora's case was mainly based on the decision of the bombay high court in ..... . anwar ali : [1967]65itr95(cal) the calcutta high court held that :(1) the assessment proceedings are nto binding on the income-tax authorities in proceedings under section 28 of the income-tax act. it is true that materials disclosed in assessment proceedings can be taken into consideration but such materials do nto constitute rest judicata ; and (2) in proceedings under section 28(1 ..... (1)(c) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 ?'6. mr. kirpal, the learned counsel for the revenue, contended that on precisely the same evidence ..... observed earlier, the department has nto discharged its onus of proving the fault of the assessed in concealing its income.'5. it is in these circumstances that the tribunal referred the following question to this court under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty is livable under section 28 .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //