|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 191 of 191 Records
-
1950 (1) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the arrangement under which the managing agency rights were acquired. This position is not inconsistent with the view of Chagla, J., in Ramachandra v. Chinubhai AIR 1944 Bom. 76 , where the learned Judge observed " To my mind it is impossible to contend that the mere office of managing agent without any benefits attaching to it can ever be deemed to be joint family property." The learned Judge in that sentence must have been thinking of a case where no detriment to the family estate was involved in the acquisition of the office of managing agents and not a case like the one which was considered in Haridas Purushottam, In re 1947 15 ITR 124. For these reasons we are of opinion that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is wrong and that the first part of the question referred to us must be answered in the negative. On the second part of the reference we hold that the managing agency commission should have been treated as the individual income of Murugappa Chettiar.
-
1950 (1) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be part of the income of the assessee and does not support the contention urged on behalf of the assessee in the present case. The argument addressed on behalf of the assessee that the Income-tax Officer is bound to proceed to determine the question raised by the assessee under Section 24(3) and record the loss, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the notice under Section 34 and notwithstanding the fact that the Income-tax Officer declined to proceed further under Section 34 is not supported by any authority. Nor are we prepared to agree with the contention that under Section 34 the Income-tax Officer is bound to proceed to assess the total income afresh and is not confined or restricted to assess only the escaped income. The language of Section 34 and Section 24(3) of the Act is clear and admits of no doubt; and in our opinion, the view of the Appellate Tribunal is correct. The question referred to us must, in our opinion, be answered in the negative and against the assessee.
-
1950 (1) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 15 Abkari Act punishable under Section 55 because the unlicensed partner, by himself, or through his agent the other partner, sells without a license, The learned Judges also held that even though a partnership was lawful at its inception because it was not intended to infringe any of the provisions of the Contract Act, it nevertheless, became unlawful when it intended to conduct the business jointly on a licence granted to one only of the partners In view of this opinion we must hold that the object of the partnership was illegal and therefore the partnership contract itself was void ab initio. That being the case it was open to the Income Tax Officer to refuse to register a firm whose object was unlawful and the partnership contract under which the firm was constituted was wholly void. We therefore answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessees. The Commissioner of Income Tax will get his costs of this reference which we fix at ₹ 250.
-
1950 (1) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere fact that money was made available or a deposit partakes the character of a loan on an ultimate analysis would not convert the money made available by the customers to the assessees as security deposit a borrowing or make the money "borrowed money" within the meaning of the rule. The transaction itself is described as a security deposit and in law a distinction is drawn always between a loan simpliciter and a deposit. In the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case we have no hesitation in agreeing with the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal that these security deposits are not borrowed money within the meaning of Rule 2A of Schedule II of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The question referred to us must, therefore, be answered in the negative and against the assessees and the Commissioner of Income-tax is entitled to his costs of this reference which we fix at ₹ 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1950 (1) TMI 12 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... s the exemption itself excludes from its ambit incomes chargeable by reason of Section 42. As already stated, this case itself furnishes an instance where Section 42 of the Act may be applied to residents in British India with reference to profits earned by them in Native States, if there is a business connection, The effect of the application of Section 42 to such cases is to take away the exemption from liability granted by Section 14(2)(c) of the Act in respect of profits earned by residents of British India in Native States, if such profits are earned in consequence of a business connection with British India. For these reasons we are unable to follow the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Western India Life Insurance Company Ltd. 1945 13 ITR 405 and we hold that Section 42(1) of the Income-tax Act as amended in 1939 applies to residents as well as non-residents. The question referred to us is therefore answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
-
1950 (1) TMI 11 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Magistrate to take up the case the proceeding shall be deemed to be based upon the complaint which has been duly filed within the period of limitation prescribed in the section. He shall, and I consider it is imperative, that he should allow the parties to adduce fresh evidence as the proceeding before the Honorary Magistrate, which includes examining and recording the evidence of witnesses, is bad in law. In case he is not a Magistrate competent, it is all hopeless for the complainant. He has absolutely no remedy. I invited the parties to settle their differences, so that some amount of compensation could have been awarded to the complainant, who, I have no doubt, has suffered losses on account of the illegal seizure. The matter of illegality of seizure is also in dispute and the petitioners stand on their right to have the case retried if the case does lie before a competent Magistrate. 7. In the result the petition is allowed. The orders of the Courts below are set aside.
-
1950 (1) TMI 10 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e profits from the sale of all the gold bars became determinable." I am further of opinion that the assessee should get his costs from the department and I would assess them at ₹ 500. BY THE COURT.--Our answers to the two questions are, therefore, as follows - (1) In the circumstances of the case, the profits from the sale of the three gold bars sold on the 27th of April, 1943, have not been proved to have arisen from an "adventure in the nature of a trade" within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act and they are, therefore, not liable to income-tax. (2) If the profits arising from the sale of the gold bars made on the 27th of April, 1943, were profits which had arisen from an "adventure in the nature of a trade", they could be taxed before the entire profits from the sale of the gold bars became determinable. The assessee shall get his costs from the department which we assess at ₹ 500. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1950 (1) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 573. /casereference In the last case judge Lord Greene /judge stated the position quite concisely in these terms "There is no definition of that expression (capital expenditure) which must, in their Lordships' opinion, be construed in a business sense save in so far as there may be rules of construction applicable to it. Their Lordships feel no doubt that in a business sense this expenditure is expenditure on revenue account and not on capital account.....". Applying the test laid down in that case we are of the opinion that the sum of ₹ 18,911-12-0 paid to the old partners by the new firm was an item of revenue expenditure and an admissible deduction in computing the profits of the new firm, the applicant in this reference. The second question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee having succeeded in this reference would be entitled to his costs which we fix at ₹ 250. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1950 (1) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd therefore no question of deduction in respect of the sum of ₹ 4,500 allowed by Section 4(1)(c), third proviso, arose in the case. On the question whether Section 42 (1) applied to residents or whether it was confined in its application to non-residents as held by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court, the Judicial Committee expressly reserved their opinion. The Bombay case has therefore no bearing on the present question. For these reasons, we answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. It follows from our answer to the first question that a portion of the profits, that is to say such portion as the Income-tax Officer thinks just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case, is attributable to the purchase of cotton made in British India by the agents of the assessee and such profits could be apportioned under Section 42(3) of the Act. The second question also is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
-
1950 (1) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Section 25(4) by reading the words "end of the previous year" as if they ran "end of the last year whose profits have been assessed to tax", or "the end of the year of account preceding the assessment year in which there has been a succession" and (6) to the anomalous and arbitrary consequences resulting from an acceptance of the construction contended for by the assessee in the imposition of different burdens and the grant of different standards of relief for taxpayers occupying the same position and falling within the same category, I am unable, with respect, to accept the contention of the assessee's learned advocate. I would therefore answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. As my learned brother holds a contrary opinion, his judgment which agrees with the view of the Appellate Tribunal and his direction for costs would prevail under Section 66A of the Income-tax Act. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1950 (1) TMI 6 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... view that the non-summoning of the original notice would make a copy of it inadmissible cannot be right. Even otherwise the petitioner filed O.S. No. 193 of 1949 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Kumbakonam, for the recovery of Rs. 292 from the company and he obtained a decree for the amount claimed with costs making the same a first charge on the very same movable items which the petitioner is alleged to have wrongfully retained. In view of that, there can be no doubt that the sum of Rs. 294-5-0 was actually due to the petitioner, and if for the amounts due to him which the management of the company did not pay, he retained with himself certain movables of the company, it cannot be said that his action is one which is wrongful, as contemplated in section 282A. I am therefore of opinion that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are illegal. The conviction and sentence are therefore set aside, and the petitioner is acquitted. Fine, if paid, will be refunded.
....
|
