Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1970 1970 (5) 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 41 to 44 of 44 Records

• 1970 (5) TMI 4
  

  Carry Forward & Set Off - to determine whether two lines of business constitute the " same business " within the meaning of section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act, the income-tax authorities must consider the inter-connection, inter-lacing, inter-dependence and unity furnished by the existence of common management, common business organisation, common administration, common fund and a common place of business

  ---

• 1970 (5) TMI 3
  
  Issues:
  Assessment of agricultural income under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65. Determination of whether the sale proceeds of teak trees constitute capital or revenue. Allowability of expenses incurred for obtaining agricultural income as deductions from the sale proceeds of trees.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved appeals arising from the assessment of agricultural income under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65. The assessee initially declared a net agricultural income for each year but later additional income from the sale of teak trees was revealed during the assessment process. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed certain expenses and assessed the income accordingly. The subsequent appeals to higher authorities confirmed the assessments, leading to the matter being referred to the High Court. The High Court considered whether the sale proceeds of teak trees should be classified as capital or revenue and also addressed the deductibility of expenses incurred for generating agricultural income.
  
  The primary issue before the court was to determine if the sale proceeds of teak trees were to be treated as capital or revenue. The court noted that the teak trees had been planted years earlier and were cut and removed entirely for planting rubber, eliminating any possibility of future income from the trees. The court referred to previous cases to establish that the realization from the sale of trees with roots intact could be considered income, but in this case, where the roots were also removed for planting other trees like rubber, the situation was different. The court applied the test of income as a periodical return from a definite source and concluded that once the trees were removed with roots, the source ceased to produce income, affecting the capital structure.
  
  The court emphasized that the profit motive behind planting the teak trees did not determine whether the sale proceeds were capital or income. It highlighted that the sale of trees with roots affects the capital structure as it disposes of a part of the assets, making the sale proceeds a capital transaction rather than revenue. The court cited precedents and principles to support its decision that the sale proceeds in this case did not constitute revenue but were capital in nature. Consequently, the court answered the first question in favor of the assessee, ruling that the sale proceeds were capital. As a result, the second question regarding the deductibility of expenses became unnecessary to address. The court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and awarded costs to the assessee.

  ---

• 1970 (5) TMI 2
  

  Income-tax Officer held that the valuation by the company of the opening stock was in "clear violation of the terms of agreement between the vendors and the company" and added a sum of Rs. 33,000 representing the difference between the value of the closing stock - Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 33,000 forms part of the assessable profits of the assessee-company - Assessee's appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 1970 (5) TMI 1
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether arrears of royalty and rent are assessable as income for specific assessment years.
  2. Whether surplus from the sale of property is assessable as income for a particular assessment year.
  
  Analysis:
  Issue 1:
  The case involved the assessment of arrears of royalty and rent as income for the assessee for specific assessment years. The assessee, a public limited company, acquired proprietary rights in lands rich in coal and fireclay, along with the right to collect arrears of rent and royalty from lessees. The Income-tax Officer initially assessed these arrears as the assessee's income, but the High Court disagreed. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court, stating that the purchase of the right to collect arrears cannot be considered income. The Court emphasized that the assessee acquired these rights after incorporation and did not have the right to collect arrears as the property owner. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue.
  
  Issue 2:
  The second issue revolved around the surplus derived from the sale of properties purchased by the assessee. The Tribunal had concluded that the sale was part of a trading adventure, making the profit taxable. However, the High Court disagreed, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The Court highlighted that the primary facts, including the financial situation of the assessee, the nature of the properties purchased, and the timing of the sale, did not conclusively prove that the transaction was a trading adventure. The Court emphasized that the mere ability to sell property for profit does not establish a business transaction. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue as well.
  
  In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decisions on both issues. The Court clarified that the purchase of rights to collect arrears of rent and royalty does not constitute income and that the sale of properties did not qualify as a trading adventure, thereby ruling in favor of the assessee on both counts.

  ---

123