|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 76 of 76 Records
-
1965 (4) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the dividend income of 300 shares of the Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Private Ltd. transferred by the assessee to S. Raghbir Singh Trust was the income of the assessee liable to tax ?
Whether the assessee was entitled to claim deduction of ₹ 19,856 paid as interest to R. B. Seth Jessa Ram Fatch Chand against the dividend income of the aforesaid 300 shares ?
Held that:- Unable to accept the argument of counsel for the revenue that by the use of the expression " indirectly " in the first proviso the legislature sought to bring within the purview of clause (c) cases where the settlor was under the guise of a trust seeking to discharge his own liability. The proviso contemplates cases in which there is a provision for retransfer of the income or assets and such provision is for retransfer directly or indirectly. It also contemplates cases where there is a provision which confers a right upon the settlor to reassume power over the income or assets directly or indirectly. It is the provision for retransfer directly or indirectly of income or assets or for reassumption of power directly or indirectly over income or assets which brings the case within the first proviso. Cases in which there is a settlement, but there is no provision in the settlement for retransfer or right to reassume power do not fall within the proviso, even if as a result of the settlement, the settlor obtains a benefit. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (4) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the disallowance of a sum of ₹ 19,796 out of the remuneration paid to Mr. T. M. Ayyadurai is justifiable ?
Whether a sum of ₹ 17,346, which represented compensation received by the assessee for the loss of the managing agency of the Nellore Power and Light Company Ltd., is income liable to tax?
Held that:- It is true that if, on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that a particular remuneration stipulated to be paid is not bona fide or is unreasonable, the High Court in exercising its advisory jurisdiction has no power to interfere with that opinion. But the material circumstances relating to the nature of the contract, the services to be performed and the nature of the duties by the employee were not at all taken into account by the Tribunal and the income-tax authorities. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that the first question should be answered in the negative.
The High Court was of the opinion that compensation received for taking over the Nellore Power and Light Company Ltd. was a capital receipt not liable to be taxed, and on the materials placed before us, we are unable to disagree with the High Court on this question. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (4) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the depreciation allowance should be computed in respect of the 10/16th share in the factory on the basis of the original cost to the larger joint family or on the basis of the valuation at which the assessee took over the factory?
Held that:- Depreciation allowance should be computed on the basis of the valuation at which the assessee took over the assets. Appeal allowed.
-
1965 (4) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the provisions of section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 can be said to apply to the assessees in this case ?
Held that:- In terms of section 41 of the Act the nattamaigars are the managers of the properties on behalf of others and are entitled to receive the income therefrom on behalf of them. With the result, the income which they hold on behalf of the kasupangudars can be assessed only in their hands in the manner prescribed thereunder.
The High Court has rightly answered the question referred to it in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee that the managing trustee qua the surplus income managed the property and derived the income on behalf of the kasupangudars and that the assessment should be made on the said managing trustee to the extent of the interest of each of the kasupangudars in the income received by him . Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (4) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the profit arising to the assessee-company from miscellaneous insurance transactions of a mutual character was assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act ? and
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, if the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, the balance of the profits as disclosed in the assessee-company's profit and loss account after deducting the various reserves should be the taxable profits within the meaning of section 2(6C) read with rule 6 of the Schedule of the Indian Income-tax Act ?
Held that:- It is true that the Bombay High Court was concerned with rule 2, but when we go to the Schedule and find out what is the balance of profits or surplus that has been made taxable, it does not make any difference to the construction of section 2 (6C) whether it is rule 2 that is applied or rule 6. Therefore, disagreeing with the High Court, we answer the first question in the affirmative.
Examining rule 6 in the light of this background, it seems to us that the intention of the rule is that the balance of profits as disclosed by the accounts submitted to the Superintendent of Insurance and accepted by him would be binding on the Income-tax Officer, except that the Income-tax Officer would be entitled to exclude expenditure other than expenditure permissible under the provisions of section 10 of the Act. It is common ground in this case that the reserves which were added to the balance of profits were not expenditure. Accordingly, agreeing with the High Court, we answer the second question in the affirmative. Appeal allowed in part.
-
1965 (4) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and In the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to set off the business loss of ₹ 55,912 brought forward from the preceding year against the entire income including interest on securities held by the assessee ?
Held that:- Under section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 the income from the securities which formed part of the assessee's trading assets was part of its income in the business and, therefore, the loss incurred in the business in the earlier year could be set off against that income also in the succeeding years.
Thus the High Court was right in answering the question referred to it in the affirmative. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (4) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipts of the assessee by the sale of loom-hours amounting to ₹ 53,460 and ₹ 1,85,230 in the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 respectively were revenue receipts liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act?
Held that:- High Court was right in holding that the receipts from sale of "loom-hours" were in the nature of capital receipts and were not taxable. Appeal dismissed.
-
1965 (4) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on a true interpretation of clause (viii) of sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act the sum of ₹ 36,396 received by the assessee as an allowance during the previous year of the assessment year 1949-50 is revenue income liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?
Held that:- The allowance is revenue income and not exempt from taxation as agricultural income. Therefore, we accept the appeal and answer the question referred in the affirmative
-
1965 (4) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the sum representing the credit in the estate and property account for the estimated value of the rubber trees on the assessee's estate cut and used as fuel in the year of account is income liable to tax – held that receipts from such sale would be of revenue nature
-
1965 (4) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Claim for exemption under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... us that it would be enough to show that the gift was made on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to directly or indirectly facilitate the carrying on of the business, profession or vocation. We do not think that it is further necessary to prove as contended for on behalf of the revenue that any benefit actually accrued to the business or that the gift was made with a view to earn profits for the business. We feel that sufficient authority is afforded for our conclusion by the decision in Binodiram Balchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax and also by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chandulal Keshavlal and Co. In the result, we answer the question referred in favour of the assessee and against the department. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Appellate Tribunal as required by section 26(6) of the Gift-tax Act. We make no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1965 (4) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Set off of loss - If a person carries on two or more distinct businesses, the profits or losses of all of them ought to be added together and the aggregate sum so arrived at would represent his profits or gains in the business. If the net result of this calculation shows a loss, such loss may u/s 24 of the Act be set off against the profits or gains derived by the assessee from other heads of income of that year
-
1965 (4) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Fixed Assets - proviso (b) to s. 23A(1) of the IT Act was not applicable to the assessee - company is not obliged to show depreciation in its balance-sheet by way of reserves and indeed ought not to do so under the form prescribed by s. 211, depreciation cannot be considered in the context of reserves
-
1965 (4) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Tribunal was justified in taking the view that the proper valuation of the stocks has been made by valuing both the opening and closing stocks at cost so that there should be no profit or loss in respect of the unsold shares
-
1965 (4) TMI 3 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm - registration - entitled - once ITO comes to the conclusion that the partnership is genuine and a valid one, he cannot refuse registration on the ground that one of the partners is a benamidar of another
-
1965 (4) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Whether the person who is in charge of the debutter estate can be assessed to income-tax under s. 9 of the Act in respect of the immovable properties of the estate which fetch considerable income - Held, no
-
1965 (4) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the transactions between the assessee and Messrs. Kedar Nath Hariram were speculative transactions within the meaning of the expression used in section 24(1) -Whether, Tribunal erred in rejecting the set-off of the loss claimed by the assessee under section 24(1)
|
