Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1973]87ITR183(Ker)
..... 1, 1962. that was a house acquired in a previous year to which the income-tax act, 1961, did not apply and cannot be treated as a 'new asset ' for the purpose of section 54. we do not consider it necessary to express a final opinion about ..... before or after the date of sale or constructed within two years thereof. the sale must it is urged refer to a sale during a previous year to which the income-tax act, 1961, will apply. if this is the view to be taken the expression ' new asset ' occurring in section 54(ii) cannot be applied to the property sold on july ..... rs. 15,029, the capital gains by the sale of the first house on july 25, 1969. this was proposed on the basis of section 54(ii) of the income-tax act, 1961. though the assessee demurred, the proposed rectification was made. an appeal taken by the assessee before the appellate assistant commissioner was dismissed and the tribunal in further appeal came .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker315
..... as they were taken without jurisdiction. in this case the petitioner could not be treated as a defaulter by virtue of' the proviso to section 45 of the income-tax act and as such the respondents 1 to 3 who are within the territorial jurisdiction of this court could be restrained from taking any step in pursuance of the ..... petitioner to the proof of the relevant averment in support of the case that he could not be treated as defaulter under the proviso to section 43 of the income-tax act, the correctness of the averments was not disputed before me and arguments proceeded on the ground that the proviso to section 45 is applicable to the case. ..... prohibitions and restrictions for remittance of money from goa to the taxable territory. therefore by virtue of the proviso to section 45 of the income-tax act the income-tax authorities could not treat him as defaulter in respect of the tax due for the said assessment years. since he is not a defaulter no proceedings for the recovery of the said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1993]199ITR484(Ker)
..... no. 1605, dated february 26, 1985 calculation of depreciation for extra shift working of plant and machinery under section 32 of income-tax act, 1961, read with rule 5 of income-tax rules, 1962--instruction under section 119(1) of income-tax act-the board had laid down in their letter no. 10/83/69 i. t. (a. ii), dated september 28 ..... by the tribunal. the question thus arising for consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to sustain his claim for deduction under section 35 of the income tax act, 1961. no other question arises for consideration.7. the question thus arising for consideration is the one stated above and not either of the questions formulated in ..... the instructions issued earlier have been considered again by the board. in exercise of the powers conferred by section 119(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the central board of direct taxes, being of the opinion that it is expedient for the proper administration of these provisions, directs that the grant of extra shift allowance .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1990]186ITR498(Ker)
..... tribunal is erroneous in law. counsel for the revenue also brought to our notice the amendment made by section 3 of the finance act, 1989, to section 2(14) of the income-tax act, 1961. in the light of the above decisions and the statutory amendment effected with retrospective effect, we are satisfied that the decision of the ..... appellate tribunal is erroneous in law in holding that no tax on capital gains was leviable on the sale of the land in question. we ..... (bom) , held that the capital gains arising out of the sale of agricultural land is not liable to levy of capital gains tax under the income-tax act. thereafter, at the instance of the revenue, the income-tax appellate tribunal has referred the question of law, extracted hereinabove, for the decision of this court.3. we heard counsel for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]188ITR137(Ker)
..... effect of sections 237 - 240, 241 and 244 of the income-tax act, 1961, there has been a conflict of judicial opinion. on the one side is the view taken by the allahabad high court in purshottam dayal varshney v. cit : [1974]94itr187(all) and by the bombay high court which followed it in cit v. s. c. shah : [1982]137itr287(bom) . ..... interpretation we have placed on the two sections.14. if there be any lingering doubt, that too vanishes when a reference is made to section 241 of the income-tax act.15. that section visualises a situation where an order giving rise to a refund is the subject-matter of an appeal or further proceedings or, where any other ..... is entitled to withhold the refund with the previous approval of the commissioner during the pendency of remand proceedings under the provisions of section 241 of the income-tax act. but even in such a case, under the provisions of section 244, sub-section (2), interest becomes payable on the amount of refund ultimately determined to be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]192ITR585(Ker)
..... apply for all the five years (1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81).8. we shall extract section 35b(1)(a) and (b) of the income-tax act, 1961 ;'35b. (1)(a) where an assessee, being a domestic company or a person (other than a company) who is resident in india, has incurred after the 29th day of ..... ) :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission payment qualifies for weighted deduction under section 35(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the income-tax act, 1961 ? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right and reasonable in finding that collecting the necessary information regarding the goods for export ..... , the commission payments made in india in respect of exports made by the assessees to the u. s. s. r. are entitled to weighted deduction under section 35b of the income-tax act, 1961 ?'2. the said referred cases (i. t. r. nos. 91 to 102, 203 and 211 of 1984) as also 0. ps. nos. 8381, 8382, 8384, 8387, 8388, 8450, 8451, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker345; [1961]42ITR631(Ker)
..... levying penalty.5. we would now summarise the grounds because of which we think the penalty cannot be levied against the heir of the deceased assessee. the income-tax act has not made the liability o the heirs as wide as that of the deceased, nor it has extended all its provisions to such persons, and ..... of treating the executor, administrator or other representative of the deceased as assessee is only for the limited purpose of assessment, and all the provisions of the income-tax act for enforcing the liability are not extended. in other words the duty of the executor or administrator still remains and legal representative does not become an assessee. ..... appealed to the appellate assistant commissioner, but failed. thereafter the appellate tribunal has allowed the appeal on the ground that the penalties under section 46(1) of the income-tax act cannot be levied against the heirs of the deceased assessee. in support of this view the tribunal has relied on e. alfred v. additional i. t. officer .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1990]186ITR365(Ker)
..... applicant's case and the advances made by the company to the applicant are assessable to tax as deemed dividend under section 2(6a)(e) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 ?'2. the respondent is the revenue. we are concerned with the assessment year 1961-62. the assessee is a hindu undivided family. the said family is a shareholder in ..... appearing in the registers of the company and the loans and advances were made to the hindu undivided family and, in this view, section 2(6a)(e) of the income-tax act was clearly attracted. it is thereafter at the instance of the assessee that the question of law, formulated hereinabove, has been referred to this court for decision.3. ..... of the assessee-hindu undivided family to the extent of rs. 4,54,290 as deemed dividend under section 2(6a)(e) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. but, in the appeals, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) held that the accumulated profits for the purpose of section 2(6a)(e) will only be rs. 29,470, which represented the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker364
..... held in : [1951]20itr280(bom) , that a hindu undivided family carrying on three separate businesses, but found to be doing only money-lending business, and having paid tax under the income-tax act, 1918, was entitled to the benefit of section 25(4) only in respect of the money-lending business.harries, c. j., has held in : [1952]22itr44(cal ..... amalgamated in 1943, and that really amounted to succession by the newly constituted firm.the tribunal, therefore, held that the partnership of 1943 wag not an entity taxed under the income-tax act, 1918, and the benefit of section 25(4) cannot be given to the assessee. the asscssee claimed that a question of law had arisen, and prayed ..... been referred:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is not entitled to relief under section 25(4) of the indian income-tax act, and to what extent?'8. the learned advocate-general, who has appeared for the assessee, has argued that the business carried on by the partnership of 1918 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1990]181ITR368(Ker)
..... , regarding firms. chapter xvi of the act contains sections 182 and 183 relating to assessment of firms. sections 184 - 186 relate to registration of ..... tax as it is a 'person' within the meaning of section 2(31) of the act having its own entity and personality. there is nothing in law to preclude common partners constituting two separate firms in respect of different businesses carried in by them for the purpose of the income-tax act.9. there are special provisions in the income-tax act, 1961 ..... forward of losses of registered firms, unregistered, firms, etc., (sections 75 - 78) which would clearly show that a partnership is treated by the income-tax act as a separate entity from its partners for the purpose of taxation. the question whether the same partners, when they enter into two separate agreements of .....
Tag this Judgment!