Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act 1961 section 269d preliminary notice Court: karnataka Page 6 of about 645 results (0.122 seconds)

Soma Sundarams (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnatak ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [1979]116ITR620(KAR); [1979]116ITR620(Karn)

..... , at the rate or rates specified in the third schedule.' the expression 'chargeable profits' is defined in s. 2(5) of the act as : '(5) 'chargeable profits' means the total income of an assessee computed under the income-tax act, 1961 (43 of 1961), for any previous year or years, as the case may be, and adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the first schedule.' 3 ..... . the expression 'standard deduction' is defined in s. 2(9) of the act. section 2(10) of the act provides that all other words and .....

A. Gopala Naidu Vs. Tax Recovery Officer-i and Another.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : (1988)66CTR(Kar)106; [1988]169ITR417(KAR); [1988]169ITR417(Karn); [1988]35TAXMAN396(Kar)

..... to the department. he further submitted that it might be that the order was outside the purview of rule 26 of the second schedule to the income-tax act, 1961, and it was for the petitioner to have taken prompt action either seeking for vacating the said order or questioning the legality of the order itself ..... far as it prohibited the tenant from paying future rent to the petitioner.neither under the provisions of the income-tax act, 1961 ('the act' for short), nor the rules framed thereunder, has any power been conferred on the tax recovery officer to prevent a tenant from paying the future rent to his landlord and to compel him to ..... per month payable to the petitioner, to the department instead, until further orders.on january 6, 1982, the tax recovery officer issued two orders (vide annexures 'b' and 'c') under rule 48 of the second schedule to the income-tax act, 1961, attaching two buildings belonging to the petitioner, namely, m/s. sujatha theatre at ramachandrapuram, bangalore, and no .....

Commissioner of Income Tax TDS, HMT Bhavan, Bangalore and Another Vs. ...

Court : Karnataka

..... minimum guarantee payment to kkfhpl. the dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the assessee not having deducted the tax at source (tds), as was required under section 194 i of the income tax act, 1961 (for short act'). the assessee was thus held liable for the consequences for failure of deduction of tds provided under section 201 of ..... the act. it is not disputed that the assessee has been filing its return in the prescribed format provided under section 206 of the act with regard to deduction of tax made at source ..... on facts, as the case before the apex court was a case of execution of an order of ejectment, whereas the case before us is one under the income tax act, where action has to be taken for tds having not been deducted and deposited. the law in this regard is well settled that where no limitation is provided .....

H.H. Bhairao Rao Maloji Rao Ghorpade Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Offic ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [1962]46ITR568(KAR); [1962]46ITR568(Karn)

..... previous year to which that assessment year related, the lands from which the petitioner derived his agricultural income were not within the new state of mysore, that income did not attract the tax imposed by the mysore, that income did not attract the tax imposed by the mysore agricultural income-tax act. 4. the taluk of mudhol in which the lands belonging to the petitioner are situate, originally ..... , and november 1, 1956, was not taxable under the provisions of the mysore agricultural income-tax act. 19. in ananthanarayana iyer v. agricultural income-tax officer, their lordships of the high court of kerala in effect came to the same conclusion. that was a case in which part of the agricultural income-tax act was enacted after the inclusion of the district of malabar which originally formed part .....

B.M. Shivakumar Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1996KAR397; 1996(41)KarLJ1

..... within the constitutional meaning of the expression 'agricultural income' as defined in the central as well as the state acts. the definition of agricultural income adopted by the state legislature under the principal act is well within the wider definition given to the expression by parliament in the income-tax act, 1961. it has also been judicially held that ..... a merchant who purchases a standing crop or sells it after harvest cannot be said to be deriving agricultural income since his profits are referable to a trading operation of purchase/sale ..... : [1963]48itr154(sc) , it has been held that (page 171 of 48 itr (sc)) : 'it must be remembered that if the income-tax act prescribes a period during which the tax due in any particular assessment year may be assessed, then on the expiry of that period the department cannot make an assessment. where no period is .....

S. Narayanappa and Brothers Vs. Income-tax Officer, Urban Circle, Bang ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [1959]37ITR257(KAR); [1959]37ITR257(Karn)

..... is what rajamannar, c.j., said about it : 'it is impossible to accept the contention of mr. vidyasankar that the amount demanded as advance income-tax under section 18a of the income-tax act is not a tax. 'a tax in the general understanding of the term.... signifies as exaction for the support of the government' : vide united states v. butler. the primary meaning and object of ..... the provisions of section 46(1) of the income-tax act. 7. mr. srinivasan has also contended that income-tax is the tax that is charged on the income of a person of the previous year and the advance tax being really a tax on the income of the year in which the advance tax is demanded, such advance tax cannot be regarded as income-tax. mr. srinivasan also contends that, in any event .....

S. Narayanappa and Brothers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Urban Circle and a ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1960Kant40; AIR1960Mys40

..... the income-tax act.(7) mr. srinivasan has also contended that income-tax is the tax that is charged on the income tax a person of the previous year and the advance tax being really a tax on the income of the year in which the advance tax is demanded, such advance tax cannot be regarded as income-tax. mr. srinivasan of s. 46(1) of the income-tax act ..... rajamannar c. j. said about it:'it is impossible to accept the contention of mr. vidyasankar that the amount demanded as advance income-tax under s. 18a of the income-tax act is not a tax. a tax in the general understanding of the term..... signifies an exaction for the support of the government' (vide united states v. butler ..... i think abundantly clear that the amount demanded by that notice is a tax. if what is demanded under s. 18a is admittedly a tax, no other tax being payable by an assessee under the provisions of the income-tax act other than income-tax or super tax, the tax so required to be paid in a notice of demand issued under s .....

M. Damodar Bhat Vs. the Third Income Tax Officer, Mangalore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1968Kant258; AIR1968Mys258

..... law rep 476 in which this court indicated the approach to be made for interpreting and ascertaining the true effect of section 297 of the income-tax act, 1961. by the first sub-section thereof, the income-tax act, 1922 was repealed, and sub-section (2) set out what may be briefly regarded as savings. the second sub-section gives several ..... other prayers are neither incidental or ancillary to the said main relief.(2) the impugned notice was issued under sub-section (3) of section 226 of the income-tax act, 1961 and addressed to a third party called the rajarajeshwari motor service from whom certain sums of money, it was believed, were due or payable to the petitioner. ..... we, therefore, make an order declaring that the impugned notice under section 226(3) of the income-tax act, 1961 bearing no. 770-(d)(i)/60-61, 61-62, 62-63 and 63-64 dated 23-4-1965 issued by the third income-tax officer, mangalore to messrs. rajarajeswari motor service, lady hill, mangalore and produced as exhibit viii with .....

Dena Bank Vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Co.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1992KAR2659

..... of that case. in that case, the assessment was made after the partnership was dissolved. therefore, having regard to the provisions contained in section 171(6) of the income-tax act, it was held that the liability created thereunder was a new liability. in para-6 of the judgment, their lordships have stated thus: '6. though several contentions were ..... are initiated.' the supreme court held that the firm was an independent assessable unit for the purpose of the sales tax act and it was given the status under the sales tax act as was given to it under the income tax act. though under the partnership law the firm was not a legal entity but only consisted of individual partners for ..... 27) whether the leases in favour of defendants 16, 17 and 18 are hit by lies pendens? 28) whether the leases are governed by the karnataka rent control act, 1961? 29) whether the plaintiff is entitled to bring the properties to sale free from the objection of the defendants 16 to 18? addl. issues framed on 20-11 .....

Onam Agarbathi Company Rep. by Its Partners, Sri. K.K. Rangaiah Vs. th ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : (2009)223CTR(Kar)465; ILR2009KAR1345

..... . similarly commission payment of rs. 6,03,546/- made to his sister concern m/s. o.m.c. also dis-allowed under section 40(b) of the income tax act on the ground that m/s. o.m.c. was started to take away the profits of the assessee and that it had no other activity except to deal with ..... filed declaring a loss of rs. 25,70,965/- which was accepted under section 143(1)(a) of the income tax act on 29.1.1993. subsequently, a regular assessment under section 143(3) of the act was made on 27.3.1995 determining the total loss at rs. 1,29,495/- as against rs. 25,70,965/-. in computing the regular assessment, certain ..... the case of commissioner of income tax v. nagpur golden transport company reported in : [1998]233itr389(delhi) to contend that payment of interest by one firm to another firm cannot be treated as payment to partners of that firm though the partners in both firms are common so as to attract section 40 clause (b) of the act as the firm and its .....