Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Section 171

S.C : These appeals on certificate issued by the High Court under Art. 133 of the Constitution are directed against the orders and judgments of the High Court of Kerala.

Avijit Das / September 14, 1990

Supreme Court Of India Income Tax Officer vs. Smt. N.K. Sarada Thampatty Section 171 Asst. Year1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 K.N. Singh, […]

Patna H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that 50per cent of the income from business and property has to be assessed in the hands of the assessee- HUF and the balance 50per cent has to be assessed in the hands of Shri Nand Kumar Prasad Sah in the status of an individual for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74.?

Avijit Das / September 11, 1990

High Court Of Patna CIT vs. R.B.Tunki Sah Baidyanath Prasad Section 171 Asst. Year 1972-73, 1973-74 G.G. Sohani C.J &

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The short point arising for determination here pertains to the partition of an HUF possessed of no assets, but burdened with debts.

Avijit Das / April 5, 1989

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Wazir Singh Section 171 Gokal Chand Mital vs. S.S.

Sec. 2(24), Section 171, Section 4

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the declaration dated December 3, 1969, and the partition deed dated April 1, 1970, had the effect of diversion by an overriding title of the share income from the firm of Saboo Industries to the hands of the individual family members ?

Avijit Das / December 19, 1988

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Rajinder Pal Jain Sections 171, 4, 2(24) Gokal Chand Mital & S.S.

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability determined under s. 132(5) of the IT Act, 1961, was not an actual tax liability ?

Avijit Das / September 20, 1988

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench Kanhaiyalal Thawarji vs. CIT Section 171 Asst. Year 1978-79 G.G. Sohani, Actg.

Andhra Pradesh H.C : These four writ petitions raise a common question and were heard as a batch.

Avijit Das / April 24, 1988

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh G. Lakshminarayana vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr. Section 171(a), Art. 226 Asst. Year 1979-80

Madras H.C : All the above-mentioned writ petitions which involve questions relating to the validity, scope and interpretation of the provisions of s. 171(9) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, are disposed of by this common judgment. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the several counsel appearing in these petitions, it would be enough to refer to the admitted facts in W.P. Nos. 994 and 995 of 1984.

Avijit Das / January 13, 1988

High Court Of Madras M.V. Valliappan & Ors. vs. CIT Sections 171(a), Art. 226 M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. & T. Sathiadev,

Sec. 256(2), Section 171, Section 256, Section 4

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the ITO was competent to allocate and determine the tax liability in the hands of the members of the erstwhile HUF by his order dated July 8, 1974, is perverse and unsustainable in law ?

Avijit Das / November 27, 1987

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Balchand Malaiya vs. CIT Sections 256(2), 4, 171(8) Asst. Year 1958-59 N.D. Ojha, C.J. &

Section 171, Section 283

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the HUF of Shantilal C. Shah got partitioned w.e.f. 1st Dec., 1976, and that the income of the erstwhile family is to be assessed in the hands of the members of the family ?

Avijit Das / October 20, 1987

High Court Of Kerala Shantilal C.Shah vs. CIT Sections 171, 283(1) Asst. Year 1978-79 K.S. Paripoornan & M. Fathima Beevi,

S.C : The partial partition between the parties is valid and we direct the ITO to recognise the partial partition of the joint family properties claimed by the assessee and to proceed to make the assessment on the basis thereof.

Avijit Das / March 3, 1983

Supreme Court Of India Seth Gopaldas (HUF) vs. CIT Section 171 P.N. Bhagwati & Amarendra Nath Sen, JJ. Civil Appeal

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top