|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 13 of 13 Records
-
1953 (6) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
... ...
... ... ..... ould make a citizen liable to tax, the Courts must give that interpretation, but if two interpretations can be put -- one of which makes a citizen liable and the other does not -- the Courts must give the latter interpretation. But in the present case no provision of the Income Tax Act has been brought to our notice which makes it clear that the assessee is liable. On the other hand precedents show that in cases like the one which is before us the losses incurred in Indian States can be set off against profits made in what was British India, and I must give effect to this interpretation. 14. I would therefore answer the question which has been referred to us in the affirmative and hold that the loss incurred by the assessee in Malerkotla can be set off against the profits made in Ludhiana for purposes of computation of tax payable under the head 'business'. 15. The assessee will have his costs in this Court. Counsel's fee ₹ 250/-. D. Falshaw, J. 16. I agree.
-
1953 (6) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... umulated profits and all the clauses in the definition are concerned with distribution. To my mind, it can by no means be said that when a company pays a dividend, the tax paid by it in respect of the amount as a part of its own tax, although it may be treated as tax paid by the shareholder for the purposes of the shareholders own assessment, can be said to be distributed by the company. In my view the amount of dividend declared is, in terms of money, the actual amount paid to the shareholders which only is the divisible fund and that in any event where the declaration is of a stated percentage less tax, there seems to be no question that the amount of the tax is no part of the dividend declared. For the reasons given above, the answer to the question should in my opinion, be It means the net amount of the dividend paid to the shareholders, in this case ₹ 1,54,687. The assessee will have the costs of this reference. Certified for two counsel. S.C. Lahiri, J. - I agree.
-
1953 (6) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Jaluram Bhikulal Firm of Itwara v. Commissioner of Income Tax Madhya Pradesh. In both of the case it was held that the "shareholder" mentioned in Section 18 (5) of the Income Tax Act was the person who owned certain shares and who was shown as a shareholder in the register of the company and it was only the shareholder of a company to whom the dividends were paid who was entitled to the procedure of grossing permissible under Section 16 (2) and Section 18 (5). The reasons in support of that view are given broadly in the Bombay decision and more closely and elaborately in the decision of the Nagpur High Court. We see no reason to dissent from the view taken in the cases referred to by Mr. Meyer. For the reason given above, the answer to the question referred must, in my opinion, be in the negative. The Commissioner of Income Tax will have his costs of this reference. S.C. Lahiri, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1953 (6) TMI 10 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... ues necessitated the investment in securities, the borrowing must be regarded as having been made for the purpose of the investment. If that case fails or is given up, there is no other case upon which the claim can be supported at the present stage. As a matter of fact also the assessee did not issue the debentures or raise the share capital for the purpose of the investing the money in Government securities, for, as the authorities below have been pointed out, the debenture interest was far higher than the interest that payable on the securities and that was paid by the Government. The argument of Mr. Sanyal was an argument of despair which, I suspect, he himself realised. For the reasons given above, the answer to the first part of the question should be in the negative and with regard to the second part the answer should be that it does not arise. The Commissioner of Income Tax will have his costs of this reference. S.C. Lahiri, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1953 (6) TMI 9 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Section 4(1)(a) as being income, etc. received in British India by the company on behalf of the Association. This case has really no application to the facts of the present case, but Mr. Tek Chand referred to a passage at page 160, where Das, J., observed - "Of course, if on the taking of accounts it be found that there was no profit during the year then the question of receipt of income, profits and gains would not arise but if there were income, profits and gains, then the proportionate part thereof attributable to the sale proceeds received by the agents in India were income, profits and gains received by them at the moment the gross sale proceeds were received by them in India and that being the position the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) were immediately attracted and the income, profits and gains so received became chargeable to tax under Section 3 of the Act." But this question of proportionate profits does not arise in the present case. Falshaw, J.-I agree.
-
1953 (6) TMI 8 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , at current prices, on the discharge of an obligation which the company was not bound to discharge within the year. To sum up, the whole of the sale price for the sales made during the year of account having been received by the assessee, no question of allowing a deduction of an estimated amount of future expenses arises. Even assuming that a portion of the sale price had not been received but was only brought into the accounts because the mercantile method of accounting was followed, the amount was still not allowable because Section 10(2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act does not permit the deduction of future expenses and because even assuming that accrued liabilities are admissible under the section, the amount in question did not represent an accrued liability much less a liability of the particular sum and it would not be a proper debit even under the mercantile system of accounting. The answer to the question referred must therefore be in the negative. Lahiri, J.-I agree.
-
1953 (6) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ndian Legislature could have amended or altered or repealed any law, then existing, with retrospective effect, the Indian Parliament cannot legislate retrospectively with regard to those very laws which were existing during the currency of the Government of Indian Act, 1935, and are also existing at the present time. Such a contention has only to be mentioned in order to be rejected. It is perfectly clear that the word "until" in Article 372(1) does not refer to the date on which the law altering or repealing or amending the existing law may be made, but refers to the date with effect from which such law may be made to operate, whether that date be in the future or in the past. In my view, the decision of the Tribunal on this question was plainly erroneous and must be held to be so. For the reasons given above, the answer to the first question, in my view, should be "No". The answer to the second question should also be "No". Lahiri, J.-I Agree.
-
1953 (6) TMI 6 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Partnership Act". And in the latter case what was held was that a widow on the death of her husband was not the karta of an undivided Hindu family and consequently an agreement of partnership purported to have been entered into by a widow on behalf of her minor sons and as representing the joint family would be invaid. I do not think it necessary to discuss these cases any further. As I have said before, under Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act a minor cannot be a full fledged partner in a partnership firm and therefore the contract entered into making a minor a partner would be invalid and cannot be registered under Section 26 A of the Income-tax Act. The answer to the question must therefore be in the negative, i.e., a minor cannot enter into a partnership through his guardian even when the other partners are consenting. As the question has been decided against the assessee the Commissioner of Income-tax will have his costs of the reference. Falshaw, J.-I agree.
-
1953 (6) TMI 5 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is called a sub-partnership. Ram Pershad and Gopal Das have formed a sub-partnership which is a recognised institution and has been described by Lindley on Partnership, 1950 Edition, at page 69, in the following words - "If, therefore, several persons are partners and one of them agrees to share the profits derived by him with a stranger, this agreement does not make the stranger a partner in the original firm. The result of such an agreement is to constitute what is called a sub-partnership, that is to say, it makes the parties to it partners inter se; but it in no way affects the other members of the principal firm." I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly directed the registration of the firm under Section 26A and I will answer the question in the affirmative. The Commissioner must pay the costs of the proceedings in this Court. Counsel's fee ₹ 250. FALSHAW, J.--I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1953 (6) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in their broad general sense. It is clear from what I have so far said that "any sums" must be sums assessable in their nature, being parts of the assessable income of the relative accounting year and sums brought into the assessment and about to be brought to charge. The two sums concerned in the present case do not obviously satisfy that requirement and to say that they can count for any claim of exemption in respect of the assessable income of the year, to which they are wholly foreign, is manifestly absurd. For the reasons I have given, it appears to me to be beyond argument that no exemption could be claimed in respect of the two sums of ₹ 12,078 and ₹ 10,764 under Section 15B(1) of the Act read with the proviso to Section 15B(2) as claimed by the assessees. The answer to the question referred must therefore be "No". The Commissioner of Income-tax will have his costs of this reference. LAHIRI, J.--I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1953 (6) TMI 3 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ; and though the agreement provided for the payment at the price in full by the customer and for the deposit being returned to him on the completion of delivery under the contract, the transaction is one providing in substance and effect for the adjustment of the mutual obligations on the completion of the contract. We hold accordingly that the sums received during this period cannot be regarded as borrowed money for the purposes of Rule 2A". In my opinion the case clearly falls under this rule which is binding on this Court and I would hold that the nature of the receipts was trading receipts and the Appellate Tribunal rightly held them to be so. I would therefore answer the question in the affirmative, that is the amounts received by the assessee as empty bottle return security deposits were trading receipts and should be treated as such. The assessee will pay the costs of the Commissioner of Income-tax. Counsel's fee ₹ 1,000. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1953 (6) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of the original cost, and the method enjoined by Section 10(5)(b) is not that the Income-tax Officer should merely scale the written down value of the previous year down, but that he should take into consideration the actual cost, determining it for himself, it necessary, take also into consideration the allowance granted in the past and then make his own computation as to the written down value for the assessment year with which he is concerned. It appears to me that neither is there any principle of res judicata or estoppel standing in the way of the Income-tax Officer processing in the manner I have mentioned above, or do the terms of Section 10(2) (vi) themselves limit him in the way suggested by Mr. Mitra. For the reasons given above, the answer to the question referred must, in my opinion, be in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Income-tax will have his costs of this reference. Certified for two counsel. LAHIRI, J. --I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1953 (6) TMI 1 - MYSORE HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to contend in the criminal Court that they are not liable for assessment as determined by the Sales Tax Officer but in the view I have taken, the criminal Court cannot give any relief and the petitioners should seek their remedy either before the appellate tribunal or the revisional authority viz., the Government. In my opinion, as the petitioners were led to believe at the relevant time that they are not liable for the tax imposed and in consequence raised a contention before the criminal Court, the offence in default of payment of tax levied deserves to be viewed with sympathy, especially as the tax is represented to have been already deposited. The sentence of fine of Rs. 100 each appears to be rather too heavy in the circumstan- ces of the cases. While therefore confirming the conviction, I reduce the fine to Rs. 10 each the default sentence will stand. With this modifica- tion, the petitions are dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (1) 1952 2 S.T.C. 122 A.I.R. 1951 Mys. 70.
|
