Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1964 1964 (5) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 25 of 25 Records
-
1964 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the amounts received by the appellant as compensation for loss of agency are of the nature of capital or revenue?
Held that:- On a careful consideration of all the circumstances we agree with the High Court that cancellation of the contract of agency did not affect the profit-making structure of the appellant, nor did it involve a loss of an enduring trading asset: it merely deprived the appellant of a trading avenue, leaving it free to devote its energies after the cancellation to carry on the rest of the business, and to replace the contract lost by a similar contract. The compensation paid, therefore, did not represent the price paid for loss of a capital asset. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether compensation received by an agent for premature determination of the contract of agency is a capital or a revenue receipt?
Held that:- In the present case, on a review of all the circumstances, we have no doubt that what the assessee was paid was to compensate him for loss of a capital asset. It matters little whether the assessee did continue after the determination of its agency with the Fort William Jute Co. Ltd. to conduct the remaining agencies. The transaction was not in the nature of a trading transaction, but was one in which the assessee parted with an asset of an enduring value. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the High Court that the amount received by the appellant was in the nature of a revenue receipt.
We accordingly record the answer on the question submitted by the Tribunal in the negative. Appeal allowed.
-
1964 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Free Press Company made a business profit of ₹ 2,14,090 under the proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Act ?
Whether the capital gain made by the Free Press Company is liable to be assessed in the hands of the Express Company, under section 26(2) of the Act ?
Held that:- The first item is not liable to tax and the High Court has given the correct answer to the first question submitted to it.
As we have held, the scope of sub-section (2) of section 26 is only limited to the income from the business, the share under sub-section (2) and the assessment and realisation under the proviso can only relate to the income from the business. The argument is really begging the question itself. In the result we agree with the High Court in regard to the answer it has given in respect of the second question. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there were materials for the Tribunal to hold, that the assessee is a banking concern assessable under section 10 for all the assessment years and not exempt ?
Held that:- It is difficult to hold that Styles' case applies to the facts of the case. A shareholder in the assessee-company is entitled to participate in the profits without contributing to the funds of the company by taking loans. He is entitled to receive his dividend as long as he holds a share. He has not to fulfil any other condition. His position is in no way different from a shareholder in a banking company, limited by shares. Indeed, the position of the assessee is no different from an ordinary bank except that it lends money to and receives deposits from its shareholders. This does not by itself make its income any the less income from business within section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The answer to the question referred to the High Court should be in the affirmative.
-
1964 (5) TMI 1 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
Legality of a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer for the payment of advance tax under the provisions of section 210
|
|