The High Court held that there was nothing illegal in the issuance of the search warrant, the consequent search, the seizure during the search and taking over of the documents by the Income Tax Department under Section 132-A and dismissed the petition.
ASSETS RECEIVED UNDER GIFT – Where A acquired agricultural lands in 1961, and after converting them into non-agricultural use in 1962 gifted the lands to B in 1966, and later B sold them, the cost of acquisition under section 49(1)(ii) would be the amount originally paid by A, and not the value on the date of conversion or on the date of gift
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.—These appeals by certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad under section 66A(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, arise out of the judgment delivered and order passed on 3rd January, 1973, by the High Court of Allahabad in Income-tax Reference No. 450 of 1965. The following question of law had been referred to the High Court
Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 and Company’s (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964-Rule I of Second Schedule-Scope of- ‘Provision” and “Reserve’-Distinction- A sum of money transferred from current profits to general reserves- Dividend paid from that fund-General reserve how calculated.
Whether ITAT was justified in allowing depreciation even though the particulars were not furnished in the appropriate part of the return of income but they were furnished in the course of the assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer at the latter’s requisition ?
Rule 24 of the Income Tax Rules, 1922 states that income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller shall be computed as if it were income derived from business and 40 per cent of such income shall be deemed to be income, profits and gains liable to tax.
We have to ascertain whether there was any evidence or material before the Tribunal to estimate the profits. It is not disputed that the books of account of the assessee were not accepted. That being so, profit had to be estimated. Such estimate was made by the authorities on the basis of the performance of the predecessor-in-interest of the assessee
Amount of the unpaid price cannot be said to be a loan advanced by the non-resident company to the assessee-company nor can be the non-resident company be said to be a lender to the assesse-company so far as that amount was concerned. Since the non-resident company cannot be said to have lent the amount of the unpaid purchase price to the assessee-company either in cash or in kind
In this case the challenge before the Court was to an order dated 29.1.1970 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax who had dismissed the petitioner’s Revision Application filed under Section 33A and Section 264(1) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The issue pertaied to the Assessment Year 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, for which period the petitioner had incurred certain expenditure
The appellants are the Additional Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (the revenue); and the respondent, Ponkunnam Traders, a firm, is the assessee. The judgment under appeal is reported as Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, [1972] 83 ITR 508 (Ker). Since the question involved is fairly simple,
