|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 89 of 89 Records
-
1969 (9) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Assessment of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ave not been shown any decision or treatise on Hindu law in support of the assessee s contention that a male member of a joint Hindu family obtaining a share on partition would constitute a Hindu undivided family if he has no wife or children. No doubt, when he marries and has a wife, he would be entitled to be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. In our opinion, in order to constitute a joint family, there must be more than one member one member by himself cannot constitute a joint family. A member taking a share on partition of joint family properties has the potentialities of becoming a joint Hindu family but until he marries he cannot be considered as a Hindu undivided family. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the assessee s appeal. The assessee was rightly assessed in the status of an individual for the assessment year 1964-65. Our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances, no costs.
-
1969 (9) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessee company - managing agent commission - allowance for expenditure claimed ... ... ... ... ..... e assessee. We have seen that the assessee did not incur any expenditure towards agency commission during the accounting period. Consequently the assessee-company was not entitled to a deduction of Rs. 55,359 as managing agency remuneration. The second question framed by the Tribunal refers to revenue receipt. We do not know how the question relating to revenue receipt at all arose in the present reference. No such question appears to a have been raised by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal. Since question No. 2 does not arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal, it is not necessary to answer the question. We answer question No. 1 in the negative, and against the assessee. Question No. 2 does not arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. Consequently, it is not necessary to answer that question. The assessee shall pay the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Rs. 200 as costs of the reference.
-
1969 (9) TMI 7 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessee-company - agents appointed - liability to pay remuneration ... ... ... ... ..... opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was liable in law to pay the remuneration for the period between 13th September, 1956, to 31st December, 1956, under the provisions of article 75 of the articles of association In our opinion, the answer to this question depends on the terms contained in article 75 of the articles of association of the company which has been quoted above. Under this article Mr. Kothari and Mr. Rathi were entitled to get 16 of the net profits of the earnings of the company as remuneration for their services and not otherwise. On account of mutual bickerings, they did not render any service to the company for the period between 13th September, 1956, to 31st December, 1956. This is evident from the statement of the case and they, therefore, cannot claim any renumeration for this period. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal in correct. The question is answered in the negative. No order as to costs.
-
1969 (9) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Partnership - registration ... ... ... ... ..... into partnership on behalf of their undivided Hindu families. Since the number of partners never exceeded 20, there was no infringement of section 4 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The Tribunal was right in directing registration of the firm. Dr. Misra pointed out that the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the firm without reversing the findings recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Dr. Misra, therefore, suggested that we should call a supplementary statement of the case. This course appears to be unnecessary in the present case. The facts are clear from the various orders of the Tribunal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer. There should, therefore, be no difficulty in drawing the correct inference in law from these facts. Our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative, and in favour of the assessee firm. We direct that the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., shall pay the firm Rs. 200 as costs of the reference.
-
1969 (9) TMI 5 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income Tax Dues - Sale Proceeds ... ... ... ... ..... money in the hands of the court can no longer be considered in law to be the judgment-debtor s money. This case is clearly distinguishable as no order for rateable distribution in the case in hand was passed. In support of Mr. Kacker s argument, learned counsel for the Bombay firm has cited before me a Division Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd v. Secretary of State. There is an observation in this decision to the effect that once the sale takes place the proceeds of the sale cease to belong to the judgment-debtor, but are held by the court in trust for the benefit of the creditor executing the decree and such other creditors as had applied for rateable distribution under section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This case too is distinguishable because no prior attachment by the Collector had been made. No other point has been urged. The application in revision is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs
-
1969 (9) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Suit filed for the recovery - validity ... ... ... ... ..... he executing court. It is not for the third defendant to remind the executing court in such a case of the attachment by the Collector of the shares which had been effected long previously. It was for the authorities of the income-tax department, and particularly the Collector and the Tahsildar, who had been entrusted with the duty of recovering the arrears, to be viglant and take steps, whether under the Revenue Recovery Act or under the Income-tax Act, to realise expeditiously the Government dues. After having failed to do so, it is not open to them to file a separate suit seeking for direction to the decree-holder to refund the money which had been paid to him in due course of execution by court according to law. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and the plaintiff s stilt is dismissed. The appellant will get his costs throughout. Pending the appeal the appellant has given a bank guarantee as security for the amount decreed. It will be cancelled and delivered to the appellant.
-
1969 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether penalty could be levied on the assessee under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for concealment of the fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 in the name of R. P. Agarwal - High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition without any reasons - we set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the case be remanded to the High Court to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with law
-
1969 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
An assessee may invest his capital in shares with the intention to resell them if in future their sale may bring in higher price. Such an investment, though motivated by a possibility of enhanced value, does not render the investment a transaction in the nature of trade - Assessee's appeal allowed
-
1969 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Rent derived from shops - transactions were not lease but usufructuary mortgages - Therefore, the rent was not a revenue receipt - Revenue's appeal dismissed
|
