Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Year: 1985 Page 5 of about 2,217 results (0.149 seconds)

Oct 23 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Narandas and Sons

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-23-1985

Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR415; (1986)51CTR(Bom)91; [1986]162ITR599(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN67(Bom)

..... & sons, a case of the very assessee before us, reported in : [1978]115itr587(bom) . in that case, the act with which the court was concerned was the indian income-tax act, 1922, but there is no dispute that the scheme of assessment under that act and the income-tax act, 1961, is the same. in that judgment, this court relied upon the decision of the supreme court in ..... disputes are common judgment.2. the respondent-assessee is a firm carrying of business in bombay. the said firm consists of two partners and was duly registered under the indian income-tax act, 1922. the said firm was a dealer in government securities which formed its stock-in-trade. it appears that as pointed out by the assessee to the ..... the supreme court referred to above have been rendered in connection with the indian income-tax act, 1922, it is an undisputed position that the scheme of computation and assessment of total income under the said act is similar to the scheme of computation of total income and its assessment under the income-tax act, 1961, and hence the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision must apply to ..... the accountant-general. the assessee claimed that the said amount represented interest on securities covered under section 8 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and the assessee was entitled to credit for tax deducted in respect thereof under section 18 of that act. it was held that as the securities were transferred in the name of the assessee, it was the fund that owned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.P. Monga

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-09-1985

Reported in : (1986)51CTR(Bom)22; [1986]162ITR224(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN56(Bom)

..... : [1981]127itr97(all) and these observation (at page 102) :'it, therefore, follows that the expression 'building owned by the assessee' in section 32 of the income-tax act, 1961, has not been used in the sense of the property, complete title in which vests in the assessee. the assessee will be considered to be an owner of ..... these facts into account, the tribunal could not but conclude that the assessee was the owner of 'the property' for the purpose of section 32 of the income-tax act, 1961, and was, therefore, entitled to depreciation thereon. the said deed read with the subsequent letters, it said, could well be treated as a sale with ..... and that the assessee had thereunder become the equitable or beneficial owner of the said shed. the tribunal referred to the provisions of section 32 of the income-tax act, 1961, and noted that the question for consideration was whether the assessee could be said to own the said shed within the meaning of that provision. ..... unknown; there was but one owner, namely, the legal owner; that the expression 'income from property' used in the income-tax act, 1961, referred to the income of the legal owner of the property; and that he was the only person assessable to tax on that basis. this court reiterated that this position remained unchanged by the decision ..... bharucha, j.1. this reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, raises a question at the instance of the revenue. it reads thus :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raizally Abidally

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-24-1985

Reported in : (1986)55CTR(Bom)152; [1987]163ITR216(Bom)

..... gross or wilful neglect on his part and shall, unless it is satisfied that there has been such proof, proceed upon the basis that section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961, is attracted.9. the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue.10. the tribunal shall now proceed in the manner stated above.11. the ..... us reads thus :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in holding that the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961, read with the explanation was not attracted and thereby cancelling penalty levied of rs. 33,688 ?'5. it will be noted that the tribunal held that the provisions of ..... section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961, were not attracted to the facts of the case, but it so held without taking into account the explanation thereto which reads thus : -'explanation. - where the total ..... inspecting assistant commissioner served upon the assessee a notice to show cause under section 274(2) of the income-tax act, 1961. the assessee wrote in his explanation that the cash which was introduced into his books of account carne from his savings made from income earned by him since 1946 from his business. the inspecting assistant commissioner did not accept the assessee's .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Kulsum J.G. Padamsee

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-25-1985

Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Bom)81; [1986]161ITR704(Bom); [1986]25TAXMAN32(Bom)

..... 16. as we have stated earlier, it is an admitted position that the remand order was passed by the appellate assistant commissioner under section 250 of the income-tax act, 1961. section 253 provides that an assessee, aggrieved by an order passed by the appellate assistant commissioner under, inter alia, section 250, may appeal to the tribunal there ..... no appeal lay to the tribunal. in any case, he urged, the assessee could have filed the appeal, even as regards her submissions on section 147(a) of the income-tax act, 1961, after the appellate assistant commissioner had considered the remand report and passed a final order.15. no authorities were cited by mr. jetly in support of his submissions. ..... matter in controversy in the appeal. it noted that one of the substantial grounds of appeal before the appellate assistant commissioner was that the conditions of section 147 of the income-tax act, 1961, were not satisfied and that the reassessment was, therefore, liable to be cancelled. it concluded that the order of the appellate assistant commissioner dismissing this substantial ground ..... was competent.17. further, the appellate assistant commissioner by his order concluded the assessee's contention that the income-tax officer's action under section 147(a) of the income-tax act, 1961, was not justified by holding that 'the action of the income-tax officer in initiating proceedings against the assessee under section 147(a) is held to be justified and this preliminary .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Trustees of Staff Gratuity Fund of ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-01-1985

Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR84; (1987)59CTR(Bom)92; [1986]162ITR471(Bom); [1987]30TAXMAN426(Bom)

..... to claim gratuity'.5. the assessee had claimed before the income-tax officer that the income derived by them was exempt under section 10(25) of the income-tax act, 1961. the income-tax officer rejected the claim and the appellate assistant commissioner, in appeal, agreed with the income-tax officer. the assessees came up in second appeal to the income-tax appellate tribunal, but did not there press the claim to ..... c.j. and kania j., delivered separate but concurring judgments. they were concerned principally with interpreting the first proviso to section 41(1) of the income-tax act, 1922, which read thus : 'provided that where any such income, profits are gains or any part thereof are not specifically receivable on behalf of any one person, or where the individual shares of the persons on ..... and not of the mills and that, since the beneficiaries and their shares were know and determined, the income should be brought to tax in the hands of the assessees not under section 164 but under section 161 of the income-tax act, 1961, by charging tax in like manner and to the same extent as would be levied and recoverable from the mills' employees. the ..... at the end of each accounting year ? (3) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income is rightly assessable under the provisions of section 161 of the income-tax act, 1961, and not under section 164 of the said act ?'2. the assessment years involved are 1963-64 and 1965-66 to 1971-72. the accounting years for each of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 1985 (HC)

Fancy Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-04-1985

Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Bom)140; [1986]162ITR827(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN155(Bom)

..... view that the said expenditure was in the nature of capital expenditure and was, therefore, not deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. reversing the decision of the high court, the supreme court took the view that the allotment of loom hours under the working time agreement ..... 50% of the profits earned in the computation period should be included in the computation of its capital employed for the purpose of section 84 of the income-tax act, 1961, has been rightly rejected ?(2) assessment year 1967-68. - whether the claim of the assessee to deduct the sum of rs. 12 ..... kania, actg. c.j.1. these are three references arising on a consolidated statement of the case submitted by the income-tax appellate tribunal under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961.2. the questions which have been referred to us for our determination areas follows :'(1) assessment years 1965-66 to ..... the business of embroidering cotton cloth and art silk cloth, including saris, blouse pieces, etc. these facts can be gathered from the order of the income-tax officer. during the relevant previous year, the assessee attempted to install a bore well at its new factory site at borivli. the attempt of the ..... far as question no. (1) is concerned, it is agreed between counsel that in view of the decision of a division bench of this court in income-tax reference no. 73 of 1971 decided on april 24, 1980, the said question will have to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 1985 (HC)

N.A. Mody Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-16-1985

Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Bom)149; [1986]162ITR420(Bom); [1986]29TAXMAN219(Bom)

..... in the partnership and its assets to the continuing partners. in the circumstances, this court held that there was a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the income-tax act, 1961. in patel brothers' case : [1984]145itr614(bom) , there was no document whereunder the partner retired. the court observed that if at all there was to be an acquisition of ..... retired, the interest of each of the assessees in the partnership was extinguished and there was, accordingly, a transfer of interest within the meaning of section 2(47) of the income-tax act, 1961. relying upon the observations of the supreme court in the context of dissolution of the partnership, which the gujarat high court found to be equally applicable when a partner ..... than the assessee would continue the firm and that the assessee would retire. clause 7 is also important inasmuch as it provides that the registration of the firm under the income-tax act would be renewed. had there been a dissolution and the constitution of another firm, the existing registration would not be renewed; fresh registration would have been applied for. clauses 8 ..... plaintiffs in proportion to their respective shares in the partnership.7. the parties agree that the registration of the firm of messrs. little & co. under section 26a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, should be renewed. the parties have executed the necessary form of application for such renewal and the same has been given to the plaintiffs for the purpose of securing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1985 (HC)

T. Khemchand Tejoomal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-12-1985

Reported in : (1986)51CTR(Bom)181; [1986]161ITR492(Bom); [1986]27TAXMAN72(Bom)

..... the assessee's claim in respect of penalty was not one which could be allowed under section 28 of the income-tax act, 1961. the assessee then preferred a second appeal to the income-tax appellate tribunal. the tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had contravened some of the conditions or specifications of ..... amount of penalty paid by the assessee as a deduction in the computation of profits under section 28 of the income-tax act, 1961. she placed strong reliance on the decision of a division bench of this court in cit v. pannalal narottamdas & co. : [1968]67itr667(bom) . we shall deal with this case after setting ..... a reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee. the question referred to us for our determination in the reference is as follows :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the income of the assessee, the sum of rs. 4 ..... with the conclusion of the appellate assistant commissioner that the amount of penalty could not be allowed as a deduction and upheld the order passed by the income-tax officer. the question set out above has been referred to us from the decision of the tribunal.3. the submission of mrs. jagtiani, learned ..... m/s. bipin automobiles took place. the penalty was paid in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year. the income-tax officer concerned disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of the amount of penalty and added back the amount of penalty. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1985 (HC)

Mohammadi Begum and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-29-1985

Reported in : (1985)49CTR(AP)90; [1986]158ITR662(AP)

..... ap) and bhudhar singh & sons : [1983]143itr322(all) , are cases which are concerned not with section 153 of the income-tax act, but with section 275 of the act. now, section 275 of the income-tax act imposes total prohibition on levying penalty beyond the prescribed period of time mentioned therein. there is no language in section 275 of ..... and in favour of the revenue. no costs. 19. the learned counsel for the assessee asked for a certificate under section 261 of the income-tax act that we may certify that this is a fit case for appeal to the supreme court. in view of the fact that we have merely ..... case of ganapathi rao : [1978]115itr277(ap) to the effect that what construction would apply to section 275 would also apply to section 147 of the income-tax act. he relied upon the passage occurring at page 283 which reads as follows : 'the language of section 275 is clear and explicit. it is mandatory. ..... assessments which have been made in the year 1973 were barred by limitation and are not saved by the provisions of section 153(3) of the income-tax act. it may be noticed that it is sub-sections (l) and (2) of section 153 which raise a bar of limitation against passing any ..... purpose of the disposal of the assessee's revision or that it is prejudicial to the assessee's interests, is no less than claiming tax immunity from the provisions of the income-tax act. this argument cannot, therefore, be accepted. a division bench of the calcutta high court in cachar plywood ltd. v. ito : [ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1985 (HC)

Zdzizlaw Skakuz Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-19-1985

Reported in : (1986)50CTR(AP)39; [1986]158ITR420(AP)

..... beyond dispute that the salary which the assessee had received from his polish employer during the stay of the assessee in india is liable to be taxed under the income-tax act. however, the assessee claims exemption from the income-tax act of the amounts of allowances which he had received from the polish employer during the period of his stay in india. that claim to succeed ..... entire amount of allowances paid to the assessee by the foreign company during his sojourn in india ought to have been allowed exemption under section 10(14) of the income-tax act. the income-tax appellate tribunal held that the polish firm was the employer of the assessee and that the assessee was not an employee of the hindustan shipyard limited. having held so ..... order dated march 14, 1974, directed that 'the appeals relating to original assessment orders are to be modified by deleting the amounts exempt under section 10(14) of the income-tax act including the 'tax perquisite', as discussed above, and the appeals relating to orders under section 154 are anulled'. 4. against those orders of the appellate assistant commissioner, both the assessee and ..... had no jurisdiction to exercise his power of rectification, because the matter does not fall within the purview of section 154(1) of the income-tax act. section 154(1) of the act provides that the income-tax officer may amend any order of assessment, etc., passed by him with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. the argument of the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!


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