Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat madras Year: 1988 Page 1 of about 6 results (0.040 seconds)

Aug 18 1988 (TRI)

income-tax Officer Vs. Dr. C. Kurshid

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Aug-18-1988

Reported in : (1989)28ITD34(Mad.)

..... indian partnership act laid down as to what is the meaning of the property of the firm. it has laid down that, subject to the contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interets in the property originally brought into the stock of the ..... accounting and they do not bring about transfer of title to property convenience. it is in this background coupled with absence of any agreement or contract between the partners regarding treatment of property contributed as share capital we hold that there is no clinching evidence on record to hold that the ..... the madras high court it is clear that the question of contribution of immovable property as share capital is germane only at the formation of contract or partnership and such property becomes the property of the firm by the very intention of the parties evidenced by the agreement to treat such ..... the money belonging to the firm it shall not be deemed to have been acquired for the firm if there is contrary intention in the contract. thus both for inclusion of initial contribution of immovable property as capital by a partner or acquisition of property with the funds of the firm ..... have carefully considered the rival contentions. section 14 of the indian partnership act, 1932 reads as under:-- 14. the property of the firm.--subject to contract between the partners, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the stook of the firm, or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 1988 (TRI)

D.K. Nambudripad Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Jun-28-1988

Reported in : (1989)29ITD267(Mad.)

..... of properties available and the number of members. section 6 of the act was a provision intended to keep alive the liability for debts binding on the joint hindu family contracted before the commencement of the act by the karnavan, vejman, manager or karta, as the case may be.again, on page 812 the kerala high court pointed out with reference .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 1988 (TRI)

Varadaraja theatres (P.) Ltd. Vs. Wealth-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Aug-25-1988

Reported in : (1989)29ITD29(Mad.)

..... that the words used, even in their literal sense, are the primary and ordinarily the most reliable source of interpreting the meaning of any writing : be it a statute, a contract or anything else. but it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary ; but to remember that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1988 (TRI)

N.B. Abdul Gafoor Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Dec-19-1988

Reported in : (1989)29ITD227(Mad.)

..... processed. "agricultural" denotes that the commodity is the product of agricultural operations on land. it is not in dispute that the assessee has acquired the tendu leaves under a forest contract and ha,d not grown tendu leaves by application of any agricultural operations. the only decision which is of some assistance in deciding this issue is the case of haji .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1988 (TRI)

T.V. Balakrishnan Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Apr-15-1988

Reported in : (1989)28ITD314(Mad.)

..... is the true scope of the doctrine of throwing into the 'common stock' or 'common hotchpot'. it must be remembered that a hindu family is not a creature of a contract. as observed by this court in mallesappa bandeppa desai v. desai mallappa [1961] 3 scr 779, the doctrine of throwing into the common stock inevitably postulates that the owner of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 1988 (TRI)

India Pistons Repco Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Jan-14-1988

Reported in : (1988)26ITD413(Mad.)

1. these appeals are disposed of by a common order as they raise a common point with reference to the meaning of explanation 8 to section 43(7) of the income-tax act, 1961.2. the assessees are companies which had taken advantage of the idbi bills rediscounting scheme for the purpose of purchasing capital assets on deferred payment basis from manufacturers who had arranged for that facility with the idbi. this facility became available under the bills rediscounting scheme of the industrial development bank of india. the scheme v, as introduced in april, 1965 in terms of the powers vested in the industrial development bank of india under section 9(1)(b) of its statute which authorises it to accept discount or re-discount bills of exchange and promissory notes of industrial concerns subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. the stated objective of the scheme is twofold. the manufacturers of indigenous machinery capital equipment can push up the sales of their products by offering deferred payment facilities to the prospective purchaser-users. the purchaser-user of the machinery, on the other hand, is enabled to utilise the machinery acquired and repay its cost over a number of years. the manufacturer, of course, gets the value of the machinery within a few days of the delivery of the machinery by discounting with his banker, the bills of exchange/promissory notes arising out of sale of the machinery. the methodology of this scheme was that on placing an order with the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //