Advanced Search Results

Janki Devi and ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Sales Tax

Reported in : [1977]39STC268(Delhi)

10th March, 1959, as it was not there in the Rules originally framed.9. On 28th May, 1972, the Finance Act, 1972, received the assent of the President. Section 69 of that Act amended the Bengal Sales Tax Act … carrying on business at Delhi. It was a partnership firm. It was formed on 24th January, 1950. In 1965 two of the five partners retired. In 1966 one of the remaining three partners retired. The two partners,

Government of Karnataka Vs. M.R. Thammaiah

Court : Karnataka

Subject : LimitationCivil

Acts : Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 - Sections 17 and 69; Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 24; Karnataka Excise Act, 1965; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 156

Reported in : ILR1987KAR3538

the following 7 issues :-1. Is the suit barred by virtue of Section 68 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965 ?2. Is the suit barred under Section 69 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965 as alleged in para … The Excise Act is a regulatory Act which enables the State Government to collect revenue to augment its finances and as observed by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa -v.-Harinarayan, : [1972]3SCR784 :'Even apart from the

Balkrishna Binani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(45), 3 and 4; Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 2

Reported in : (1979)9CTR(Bom)62; [1980]121ITR442(Bom)

Co. Ltd. In the view of the Delhi High Court if s. 69 of the Finance Act, 1965, was required to be considered as a … facts and in the circumstances of the case any part of the tax paid u/s 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, was a 'debt owed' on the relevant valuation dates within the meaning of s. 2(m) of the Wealth-tax … no such liability for payment of tax on the concerned valuation dates as the liability under the charging section of the Income-tax Acts could only be attracted if the income disclosed could be said to have formed

Anil Rice Mill Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 68, 69, 131, 143(1) and 256(1); Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965 - Sections 24, 24(2) and 24(3); Benami transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988

Reported in : (2005)199CTR(All)69; [2006]282ITR236(All)

Matched in: Citation (2005)199CTR(All)69; [2006]282ITR236(All)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jauharimal Goel

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 68, 69, 131 and 256(2); Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965 - Sections 24

Reported in : (2006)201CTR(All)54; [2008]296ITR263(All)

has been held that the immunity enjoyed by a declarant under Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme is confined to the declarant alone and is not extended to the assessment … deposits of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 45,000 in the books of the appellant. Moreover in such a situation, Section 69 relating to unexplained investment outside the books rather than Section 68 in respect of each credit would, apply

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. S.A. Rahman Beevi

Court : Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 9 and 10

Reported in : [1978]111ITR422(Mad)

originally enacted contained the words 'two years' after the words 'bonafide made'. However, by Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1965, which section came into force on 1st April, 1965, the words 'one year' were substituted for the words

P. Gangadharan Pillai Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Ernakulam.

Court : Kerala

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : [1968]70ITR640(Ker)

in this context, note that section 10 of the Act has been amended by section 69 of the Finance Act, 1965, by adding the following proviso to section 10 :'Provided further that a house or part thereof taken under

P. Gangadharan Pillai Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Ernakulam

Court : Kerala

Subject : Property

Acts : Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 9, 10 and 64(3)

Reported in : AIR1968Ker295

in this context, note that Section 10 of the Act has been amended by Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1965, by adding the following proviso to Section 10:'Provided further that a house or part thereof taken under any

income-tax Appellate Tribunal Vs. B. Hill and Co. (P.) Ltd.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Finance Act, 1965 - Sections 2(5); Finance Act, 1966 - Sections 2(5); Finance Act, 1967 - Sections 2(4); Finance Act, 1964; Finance Act, 1968; Finance Act, 1969; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(18), 31, 37, 108 and 256

Reported in : (1982)29CTR(All)301; [1983]142ITR185(All)

of goods by the assessee and accordingly not entitled to tax concession provided under Section 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1965 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right … Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School as business expenditure under Section 37 in the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1969-70?' 69. Our answer to the first question referred at the instance of the asses-see for all the six years

Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ...

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256(2) and 269A; Finance Act, 1961 - Sections 2(5)(1); Finance (Amendment) Act, 1964 - Sections 5; Finance (Amendment) Act, 1965 - Sections 2(5); Income Tax (Determination of Export Profits) Rules, 1964 - Rule 2; Income Tax (Determination of Export Profits)(Amendment) Rules, 1964 - Rule 2

Reported in : (1981)25CTR(Guj)263

s. 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1964-65 and under s. 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1965, for the assessment year 1965-66. Both these provisions are in identical terms. The question which is raised in … would uphold the finding of the revenue authorities that the assessee is not entitled to any relief under section 2(5)(i) of the Finance Act, 1963.' 7. The learned Judicial Member agreed with the conclusions reached by the