Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1969 1969 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 61 to 66 of 66 Records

• 1969 (10) TMI 6
  
  Issues:
  - Interpretation of section 10(4)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding deduction of payments made by a firm to its partners.
  - Whether payments made by the firm to the members of the board of management are admissible as deductions under section 10(2)(xv) or barred by section 10(4)(b).
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court of ALLAHABAD addressed a reference from the Delhi Bench (B) of the Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The case involved an unregistered firm engaged in sugar manufacturing. The firm made payments to members of the board of management, which the Income-tax Officer disallowed as deductions. The Tribunal, however, allowed the deductions based on the argument that the payments were made by the Central Government under statutory powers, thus not falling under section 10(4)(b) barring such payments. The Tribunal emphasized the avoidance of double taxation for unregistered firms and partners, leading to the deletion of the additions from the firm's income for the relevant years.
  
  The Tribunal referred two questions to the High Court, seeking clarification on the admissibility of the payments under section 10(4)(b) for the respective assessment years. The High Court analyzed section 10(4)(b) which prohibits allowances for payments made by a firm to its partners, including interest, salary, commission, or remuneration. The Court highlighted that a firm is essentially a composition of its partners and any payments to partners reduce assessable profits. Despite one partner being taxed on the remuneration, the Court held that the firm cannot claim deductions for payments to partners, as per the clear provisions of section 10(4)(b). The Court emphasized the scheme of the Act to prevent both profit reduction by firms and double taxation of partners' income.
  
  Consequently, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to allow deductions for the payments made to the board members was not justifiable under section 10(4)(b). The Court answered both questions in the negative, favoring the Commissioner of Income-tax and disallowing the deductions claimed by the firm. The judgment highlighted the clear and unambiguous nature of the bar imposed by section 10(4)(b, emphasizing that statutory powers or government directives did not exempt the firm from the prohibition on such payments to partners.

  ---

• 1969 (10) TMI 5
  

  Allowance was made for the expenditure incurred by the assessee for the godown and compensation was awarded on the ground that the assessee had been deprived of the use of the godown - whether compensation paid to an assessee by government constituted income under sub-section (2A) of section 10 - Held, no

  ---

• 1969 (10) TMI 4
  
  Issues:
  Claim for development rebate on expenditure incurred in changing over from D.C. to A.C. system - Whether the electrical installations constitute plant and machinery for the purpose of development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, where the assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing and selling rosin and turpentine, incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,11,407 in changing over from a D.C. to an A.C. system. The company claimed a deduction of Rs. 27,852 as development rebate, which was initially disallowed by the Income-tax Officer but later allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. The main issue revolved around whether the expenditure incurred constituted "machinery or plant" under section 10(2)(vib) of the Act.
  
  The Tribunal considered the definition of "machinery" and "plant" in various clauses of section 10(2) of the Act and relied on precedents to interpret the meaning of these terms. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali, it was held that the term "machinery" should have the same meaning across different clauses of the Act. Additionally, in Raju and Mannar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it was established that fitting a diesel engine in a motor vehicle constitutes installation within the meaning of section 10(2)(vib) of the Act.
  
  The Tribunal described the changeover from D.C. to A.C. system as involving new installations of poles, cables, conductors, and switchboards for distribution to various feeders. The Supreme Court's interpretation in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mir Mohammad Ali clarified that the term "installed" should be understood broadly, not limited to being fixed in position, which aligns with the context of the present case. Furthermore, the definition of "plant" in sub-section (5) of section 10 was deemed to encompass a wide range of articles, including poles, cables, conductors, and switchboards.
  
  The Income-tax Officer had allowed normal depreciation on the articles in question under clause (vi) of section 10(2) of the Act, indicating recognition of these items as machinery or plant. Given this, the Tribunal's decision to grant development rebate under clause (vib) of section 10(2) was upheld. The High Court ruled that the electrical installations resulting from the changeover constituted plant, making the assessee eligible for development rebate on the expenditure incurred.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court answered the reference question affirmatively, stating that the electrical installations from the changeover were considered plant, thereby entitling the assessee to development rebate. The court directed the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. to pay Rs. 200 as costs for the reference.

  ---

• 1969 (10) TMI 3
  
  Issues:
  Whether conversion of self-acquired property into joint family property constitutes a gift under the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad dealt with the issue of whether the conversion of self-acquired property into joint family property constitutes a gift under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The case involved an assessee who converted his self-acquired property into joint family property, leading to a dispute with the Gift-tax Officer who assessed it as a gift. The Appellate Tribunal later overturned this decision, stating that the transaction did not constitute a gift. The key question referred to the High Court was whether this conversion amounted to a transfer as per the Act's definition of gift.
  
  The Tribunal's finding was that the property in question was initially self-acquired by the assessee and only later converted into joint family property. The court emphasized that the focus should be on the effect of the conversion rather than the initial status of the property. It cited precedents such as R. Subramania Iyer v. Commissioner of Income-tax to highlight that no formalities are necessary to convert self-acquired property into joint family property.
  
  Various cases were referenced to determine the nature of such conversions. For instance, in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. C. Satyanarayanamurthy, it was held that converting self-acquired property into joint family property constitutes a gift due to the decrease in the individual's property value and the increase in the joint family's property value. Similarly, in G. V. Krishna Rao v. First Additional Gift-tax Officer, Guntur, it was established that such conversions amount to a transfer under the Gift-tax Act.
  
  The court analyzed the definitions provided in the Act, particularly the definition of "gift," which includes the transfer of property without consideration. It concluded that the conversion of self-acquired property into joint family property by the assessee met all the elements of a gift as defined in the Act. Therefore, the court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling against the assessee and directing them to pay costs to the Commissioner of Gift-tax, Lucknow.
  
  In summary, the judgment clarified that the conversion of self-acquired property into joint family property can be considered a gift under the Gift-tax Act if it meets the criteria outlined in the Act's definition of gift. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant precedents and the specific provisions of the Act, emphasizing the voluntary transfer of property without consideration as key elements in determining the gift status of such conversions.

  ---

• 1969 (10) TMI 2
  
  Issues:
  1. Rectification of assessment orders under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
  2. Scope of section 35 in the context of capital expenditure.
  3. Lack of clarity in the Income-tax Officer's order regarding the establishment charges.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment delivered by Justice Veeraswami pertains to petitions concerning the rectification of assessment orders for the years 1957-58 to 1959-60 under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer had rectified the earlier orders following a Supreme Court decision related to the nature of collections made by the assessee. The petitioner had objected to the applicability of section 35, citing a previous case, but the court did not uphold this objection. The main contention raised was regarding the scope of section 35, which had been defined in a previous case, T. S. Rajam v. Controller of Estate Duty. The court found that the Income-tax Officer was justified in invoking section 35 to rectify the orders based on the Supreme Court decision. The officer had to determine whether the establishment expenses, initially allowed as a deduction, constituted capital expenditure related to the capital recoveries.
  
  Another issue raised by the petitioner was the lack of clarity in the Income-tax Officer's order regarding the establishment charges and their relation to capital expenditure. The court observed that this matter should have been examined in detail, and the petitioner could have provided relevant figures to clarify the situation. The court noted that the orders were vague on this point and lacked supporting materials for verification. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions and quashed the Income-tax Officer's orders, granting the officer the opportunity to reconsider the rectification after receiving necessary materials from the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the importance of clarity and detailed examination in such matters to ensure a fair decision-making process. The court also addressed the issue of limitation raised by the petitioner's counsel, stating that it would not be a concern in this case as the officer would be acting in compliance with the court's orders.

  ---

• 1969 (10) TMI 1
  
  Issues:
  - Validity of assessments for the years 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1952-53.
  - Interpretation of orders passed by the income-tax authorities.
  - Application of section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
  - Effect of partition on assessments.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved the assessment of a Hindu undivided family that claimed partition between the father and son. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim and assessed the family as a whole. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner later accepted the partition and canceled the assessments for the relevant years. Subsequently, notices were issued under section 34 for reassessment, leading to a series of appeals. The High Court held the assessments valid, citing the lifting of the limitation bar by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, highlighting a fundamental defect in the income-tax authorities' orders. The court emphasized that the original returns submitted by the family were not properly processed before issuing notices under section 34, rendering the reassessment invalid.
  
  The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments to support its decision. It cited the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas, stating that when a return is voluntarily submitted before assessment, the Income-tax Officer cannot ignore it. In this case, the court found that the original returns submitted by the family were not legally dealt with before the notices under section 34 were issued. Additionally, the court referenced the case of Estate of the late A. M. K. M. Karuppan Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which established that notices under section 34 could not be validly issued unless the original returns were disposed of. Applying this principle, the Supreme Court concluded that the assessments made pursuant to the notices under section 34 were invalid for the relevant years.
  
  In summary, the Supreme Court held that the assessments for the years 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1952-53 were invalid due to the improper processing of the original returns before issuing notices under section 34. The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures and legal requirements in income tax assessments, ultimately dismissing the appeals and ordering costs to be paid.

  ---

1234