Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1982)29CTR(All)301; [1983]142ITR185(All)
..... , or that the assessee-company was an ' industrial company ' within the meaning of section 2(7)(d) of the finance act, 1966, and the finance (no. 2) act, 1967, or section 2(6)(d) of the finance act, 1968, or section 2(6) of the finance act, 1969, so as to be entitled to the concessional rates of tax in the assessment years 1064-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 ..... to the concessional rate of income-tax as provided in clause 1(a)(1)(ii) of the proviso to paragraph f of part i of the first schedule to the finance act, 1968 (3) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was right in holding that the amounts paid to mr. martin and mrs ..... to the concessional rate of income-tax as provided in clause 1 (a)( 1 )(ii) of the proviso to paragraph f of part i of the first schedule to the finance act, 1968 (2) whether the income-tax appellate tribunal was light in holding that the assessee is not a company as is mentioned in section 108(b) on the ground that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(All)598; [2006]280ITR465(All)
..... from the object and reaches to the eyes of the person. taking into account the pious aim and object of the introduction of section 80u in the act by the finance act, 1968, we are of the opinion that total blindness under section 80u means an individual who is unable to perceive the light the total blindness does not mean ..... have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. we find that section 80u was introduced in the statute book for the first time by the finance act, 1968. the original section 80u reads as follows.' 80-u - deduction in the case of blind persons- in computing the total income of an individual, being a resident ..... from 1-4-1971 the benefit has also been extended to such assessee who suffers from permanent physical disability ( other than blindness).8. the finance minister in his budget speech for the year 1968- 69 has stated as follows:' as a measure of relief to totally blind individuals proposed to provide for deduction of rs. two thousand .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1991)95CTR(All)26; [1991]189ITR124(All)
..... of that property is deductible under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 24 of the act. the assessment years concerned herein are 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. by the finance act, 1968, clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 24 of the act was deleted and certain words were inserted in clause (iv). for the sake of convenience, we may ..... read both clause (iii) as well as clause (iv) as amended by the said finance act. clause (iii) reads ;'(iii) where the property is subject ..... b. p. jeevan reddy, c.j. 1. following two questions have been referred by the tribunal under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, for our opinion :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally justified in allowing the claim of the assesses in respect .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2005]147TAXMAN423(All)
..... from the object and reaches to the eyes of the person. taking into account the pious aim and object of the introduction of section 80u in the act by the finance act, 1968, we are of the opinion that total blindness under section 80u means an individual who is unable to perceive the light. the total blindness does not mean ..... have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. we find that section 80u was introduced in the statute book for the first time by the finance act, 1968. the original section 80u reads as follows :'80u. deduction in the case of blind persons.in computing the total income of an individual being a resident, who ..... effect from 1-4-1971 the benefit has also been extended to such assessee who suffers from permanent physical disability (other than blindness).the finance minister in his budget speech for the year 1968-69 has stated as follows :'as a measure of relief to totally blind individuals i proposed to provide for deduction of rs. two .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1992]194ITR442(All)
..... effected by the assessee on the date he filed a return of his total income, i.e., on april 24, 1968. accordingly, the supreme court held it was the substituted clause (iii) brought in by the finance act, 1968, with effect from april 1, 1968, which governs the case. this decision of the supreme court was, however, one dealing with the effect of the amendment ..... in the charging section which affects substantive rights. clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 is a charging section while section 274(2) and section 275 of the act deal with .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (1988)25ITD555(All.)
..... not included his share in the profits of the other. the ito instituted penalty. proceedings under clause (iii) of section 271(1) of the it act, 1961 (as it stood amended by the finance act, 1968) and, having regard to the minimum penalty leviable, referred the case to the iac.the iac levied penalty of a sum equal to the income concealed ..... . the assessee appealed to the tribunal and contended that the section as it stood in the assessment year 1964-65 and not as it stood amended in 1968 applied ..... tribunal was right in applying the provisions of clause (iii) of section 271(1) as amended in 1968.on these facts, the hon'ble supreme court held that a penalty is imposed on account of the commission of a wrongful act. is committed which determines the penalty. where penalty is imposed for concealment of particulars of income, it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1977]108ITR271(All)
..... of the case, the tribunal was legally justified in holding that clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the income-tax act, 1961, as substituted by the finance act, 1968, was not retrospective in effect and as such not applicable to theassessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, even though the revised returns were filed after ..... april 1, 1968 ?' 2. the facts leading up to this reference fall within a narrow compass. two assessment years, viz., 1960-61 and 1961-62, are ..... a contrary view. this being so, penalty was imposable at the rate as prevailing in the year in question, and not at the rate introduced by the amending act of 1968. we, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the department. the assessee is entitled to hiscosts which we assess at rs. 200. counsel's .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)140CTR(All)394; [1997]223ITR705(All); [1997]93TAXMAN36(All)
..... , 1969, for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63, disclosing the same income which was shown in the original returns. the finance act, 1968, amended section 271(1)(c) with effect from april 1, 1968. it, inter alia, changed the measure of the penalty. the penalty after amendment was dependent upon the amount of income concealed and ..... the previous years relating to the aforesaid four assessment years. he, therefore, initiated proceedings under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the act, 1961, for the assessment years 1966-67, 1968-69 and 1969-70. pursuant to the notices issued under section 148, the assessee filed returns for the said three years showing income 'nil ..... law in confirming the enhancement of penalties made by the appellate assistant commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961?'2. the reference relates to the assessment years 1966-67, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1973-74. for these years, the assessee returned incomes in the original returns as follows : rs. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1979]116ITR356(All)
..... tribunal was legally correct in holding that for the purposes of calculating penalty under section 271(1)(c), the provisions of section 271(1)(c) as amended by the finance act, 1968, with effect from april 1, 1968, were not applicable and that the penalty has to be calculated according to the provisions of the ..... act which was applicable as per the provisions in force prior to april 1, 1968 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally correct in reducing the amount of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) ..... by the two earlier decisions mentioned above.6. we answer the first question by holding that the provisions as they stood prior to their amendments with effect from april 1, 1968, were applicable and the second question by holding that the tribunal was justified in reducing the amount of penalty. we, therefore, answer both the questions in favour of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1979)9CTR(All)169; [1979]116ITR811(All)
..... was legally correct in holding that the assessee-company was an 'industrial company' within the meaning of section 2(7)(d) of the finance (no. 2) act, 1967 or section 2(6)(d) of the finance act, 1968, so as to be entitled to concessional rates of tax in the assessment year 1974-75 '3. the relevant and material portion of ..... , c.j. 1. the assessee manufactures and sells carpets. for the assessment year 1974-75, it had claimed relief under section 2(8)(c) of the finance act, 1974 (20 of 1974). it claimed that it was an industrial company as denned in these provisions and so it was liable to tax at the rate of ..... [1978]113itr84(sc) , the supreme court had occasion to consider the expression 'attributable to' occurring in section 80e (as it stood prior to its amendment by the finance (no. 2) act, 1967). the court had held hat the legislature had deliberately used the expression 'attributable to' having awider import than the expression 'derived from', thereby intending to cover receipts .....
Tag this Judgment!