Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: chennai Year: 1965 Page 5 of about 107 results (0.046 seconds)

Mar 13 1965 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Indian Bank Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-13-1965

Reported in : [1966]61ITR632(Mad)

..... and confirm by the tribunal in regard to the relief granted in respect of the sum of rs. 48,338. under section 49a of indian income-tax act, 1922, the income-tax (double taxation relief) (indian states) rules, 1939, were framed. rule 3 of these rules is as follows :'if any person who has ..... head office and vice versa. for the purpose of rule 3 what is important is only the income that is nationally or statutorily assessed under the income-tax act and correspondingly income which is assessed to tax in the travancore state.the view that we have taken of the scope of rule 3, as we ..... is asked for is included in the whole, but whether any part of the income has suffered tax under the indian income-tax act and that part, both identity in source and character of the income, has been charged to tax in the native state. in this case the facts clearly satisfy the test under ..... income-tax act, 1922, or otherwise, indian income-tax for any year on any part of his income proves to the satisfaction of the income-tax officer that he has paid for the corresponding year by deduction or otherwise state income-tax in respect of that part of his income, he shall be entitled to the refund of indian income-tax ..... headquarters, and conversely when the headquarters of the assessee received money from its branches, it paid interest on it. apparently what weighed with the income-tax officer was hat the sum of rs. 48,338 was claimed y the assessee in the travancore state as a deduction and the deduction having .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1965 (HC)

S. T. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-20-1965

Reported in : [1966]62ITR184(Mad)

..... veeraswami, j. - the cases of the two assessees are consolidated in this reference under section 66(2) of the income-tax act, 1922. the reference turns on the character of the receipt by each of them of a sum of rs. 19,673, which represents the ..... that was how the tribunal also was inclined to view it in a portion of its order. but, we do not find from the orders of the income-tax officer or the appellate authority or the tribunal that they regarded the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. in fact, in the statement of the ..... of the case, there was no material to support the finding of the tribunal that the sum of rs. 19,673 constituted a revenue receipt assessable to income-tax ?'a presbyterian church of england in malaya had a 999 years lease from the sultan of johore baru in thomboi estate and from the church chidambaram chettiar ..... the government of malaya took over the estate and paid compensation therefor, and the amount that was included in the chargeable income of each of the assessees was derived from the compensation so paid.the income-tax officer considered that this asset was never considered as an investment, but was treated from 1940 as part of the stock ..... the view, as we already indicated, that there is no material to warrant the conclusion that the asset was a stock-in-trade and the income in question is chargeable to tax as a revenue receipt. we are confirmed in that view by the further fact that, though the leasehold interest was acquired in 1940, it has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 1965 (HC)

Roopchand Chabildass and Sons and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-06-1965

Reported in : [1967]63ITR166(Mad)

..... other than that of the business of the firm. when the matter was finally referred to this court under section 66(2) of the act in milapchand r. shah v. commissioner of income-tax, a bench of this court, to which one of us was a party, confirmed the decision of the tribunal on the ground that, ..... venkatadri j. - these are references under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act. the facts out of which the references arise are the followin : the assessee in t. c. no. 7 of 1963 is a registered firm, messrs. roopchand ..... some other business activity of the assessee and that, on the other hand, substantial amounts of the loans had been diverted to the partners accounts to pay income-tax and to meet the liabilities of a firm in which they were substantially interested. further, it is common case that the firm was carrying on wheat and ..... of the assessee ?'the firm as well as its partners made a similar claim of interest payment in their return for the assessment year 1957-58. the income-tax officer, for the same reasons mentioned above, disallowed a sum of rs. 71,500. the tribunal also held that the bulk of the borrowings was utilised for ..... was diverted to some other business activity of the firm; on the other hand, substantial amounts of loans had been diverted to the partner accounts to pay income-tax and to meet the liabilities of the sangali firm in which they were substantially interested. for these reasons, the tribunal confirmed the finding appellate assistant commissioner and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1965 (HC)

Mohamed Thaha Vs. First Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-19-1965

Reported in : 1967CriLJ1422

..... has directed the gum of rs. 1,70,000 lying in court deposit to be transferred to the account of the income-tax department in accordance with the provisions of section 226 (4j of the income tax act.3. the first petition, crl. m. p. no. 465 of 1965, has been filed for the return of ..... the said mohamed ibrahim has consented to the amount being transferred to the income-tax officer, nagapattinam. even without his consent, the lower court was entitled to comply with the demand of the income-tax officer under section 226 (4) of the income-tax act. there is no ground to interfere with the order of the sub ..... before the sub. magistrate, mayuram, praying that the amount in deposit claimed by moharned ibrahim, may be ordered to be handed over to the income-tax department towards the income tax assessment on mohamed ibrahim for the year 1964-65. on 21st november 1964, mohamed ibrahim filed a memo before the sub-magistrate, mayuram, ..... no. 771 of 1965 has been filed to direct the sub-magistrate mayuram, to get back the sum of rs. 1,70,000 from the income-tax department. i have already pointed out that the petitioner has admitted that the sum of rs. 1,70,000 belonged to mohamed ibrahim and, in ..... agreeing to the withdrawal of rs. 1,70,000 from the court by the income-tax officer without prejudice to the rights of the partners of yakoobia traders company. in dealing with a transfer application filed by the petitioner, the sessions judge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1965 (HC)

K.R. Kothandaraman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-24-1965

Reported in : (1966)2MLJ473

..... 2 s.c.j. 332. bom. 35 : 62 bom. l.r. 667 : a.i.r. 1961 the word ' allowed' in section 7 of the indian income-tax act, 1922 presupposes a vested right. but the agreement certainly conferred on the assessee a right at the end of the month to payment of the monthly salary. in fact, the ..... the agreement, he must be regarded as a salaried employee and the remuneration credited to him for the nine months was salary chargeable to tax under section 7 of the income-tax act, 1922. it further held that as the resolution of the company was passed long after the accounting year of the assessee, it could ..... :whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of rs. 11,250 is assessable under section 7 of the income-tax act 4. having regard to the frame of the question, we are not called upon to answer whether the remuneration for the nine months would fall ..... the managing agent of the company and as its sole selling agent should be assessed under section 7 of the indian. income-tax act but the revenue would not admit it and charged the income under section 10. the allahabad high court on a reference upheld the view of the revenue and pointed out that the ..... entitled to draw the minimum remuneration in monthly instalments not exceeding rs. 1,250 per month. the assessee included the receipt of monthly remuneration in his income-tax returns for the assessment years prior to the assessment year 1960-61 under the head of 'salary' and he had been assessed accordingly. the accounting year .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1965 (HC)

M. HussaIn Ali and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-18-1965

Reported in : [1965]58ITR787(Mad)

..... assessments. action under section 34 of the income-tax act was started. in the course of those proceedings, the income-tax officer held that sales had not been brought to account and estimated the volume of such sales at rs. 1,00,000. though this amount ..... a firm carrying on business in paper and stationery on a large scale. for the assessment year in question, an income of rs. 73,492 was returned, and after deducting the excess profits tax therefrom, the income taxable under the indian income-tax act was rs. 47,405. some discrepancies in the accounts of the company were noticed after the completion of the original ..... result was that the order of the appellate assistant commissioner reducing the penalties was set aside and the order of the income-tax officer was restored.the question comes before us on a reference directed under section 66(2) of the income-tax act, and it i :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal erred in ultimately ..... reassessment proceedings, notices were issued under section 28(3) of the income-tax act and section 16 of the excess profits tax act. the assessees replies to these notices were considered. the income-tax officer finally concluded that action was justified under section 28(1)(c) of the act and the corresponding provision of the excess profits tax act. he, accordingly, imposed penalties of rs. 25,000 under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 1965 (HC)

S. Paramasiva Mudaliar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-01-1965

Reported in : [1966]60ITR283(Mad)

..... is made in this decision to an earlier decision of the supreme court in c. a. abraham v. income-tax officer, kottayam where their lordships observe that the penalty that is imposed under section 28 of the income-tax act is in the nature of an additional tax. relaying upon these decisions, mr. balasubrahmanyan suggests that if the true nature of a levy made under section ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that there was a deliberate concealment of income or keeping back of particulars to attract the operation of section 28(1)(c) of the income-tax act ?'the facts are briefly these. the assessee is a registered partnership firm doing business in grocery. for the account year ended april ..... 28 of the act is only that of an additional tax, then it would necessarily follow that a different view with regard to the ..... 12, 1955, relevant to the assessment year 1955-56, a return of income of rs. 20,861 was made. an examination of the account books of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1965 (HC)

N. Naganatha Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-02-1965

Reported in : [1966]60ITR647(Mad)

judgementthe judgement of the court was delivered byvenkatadri j. - the tribunal has submitted a statement of the case, directed under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act, and the statment of the case discloses the following facts :the assessee, naganatha iyer, is a member of a hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his father, narayanaswsami iyer, and ..... lawful. the reference, therefore, involves the true construction of section 34 of the income-tax act. lord normand, while considering the scope of section 34, delivered his opinion thus in commissioner of income-tax v. mahaliram ramjidas :'the section, although it is part of a taxing act, imposes no charge, on the subject, and deals merely with the machinery of assessment. in interpreting provisions of this ..... if there was sufficient justification for it, to hold that the amount noted in the foot-note was really the assessees income, in which case an assessable income would have been found and the tax could be charged thereon. if the income-tax officer had acted on that return and assessed the assessee before 31st march, 1950, the assessment would have been valid. he chose to ..... to this court relating to 1945-46. therefore, we feel that the assessee is entitled to claim before us that the action of the income-tax officer in reassessing his income for 1949-50 under section 34 of the act is invalid.for the reasons stated above, we answer the question in the negative and hold that, on the facts and circumstances of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 1965 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. City Motor Service Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-06-1965

Reported in : [1966]61ITR418(Mad)

..... or as a bad debt. the supreme court, while considering the scope of clause (xi) of section 10(2), observed :'that under clause (xi) of section 10(2) of the income-tax act also a debt was only allowable when it was a debt and arose out of and as an incident to the trade. except in money-lending trade, debts could only ..... . - whether a sum of rs. 55,040 is allowable as a deduction under section 10(2)(xi) or 10(2)(xv) of the income-tax act, 1922, is the question referred to us under section 66(2) of the act. the assessee is a private company, which originally was engaged as a transport operator in stage carriages; but during the accounting year relevant to ..... of the act. in the premises, therefore, the liability imposed upon the firm was not a business debt arising out of the business of the firm and that it did not spring directly from the carrying on of the business and was not incidental to it. lehnu mal asa ram v. commissioner of income-tax followed the principle of commissioner of income-tax v. abdullabhai ..... the assessment year 1957-58 with which we are concerned, it diverted itself to the business of body-building. for the assessment year it declared a loss of rs. 638. among other things, the income-tax officer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1965 (HC)

Mohamed Thaha Vs. First Income-tax Officer, Nagapattinam, and Another.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-19-1965

Reported in : [1966]61ITR538(Mad)

..... sub-magistrate, mayuram, has directed the sum of rs. 1,70,000 lying in court deposit to be transferred to the account of the income-tax department in accordance with the provisions of section 226(4) of the income-tax act.the first petition, criminal miscellaneous petition no. 465 of 1965, has been filed for the return of the sum of rs. 1,70,000 ..... to the said mohamed ibrahim. the said mohamed ibrahim has consented to the amount being transferred to the income-tax officer, nagapattinam. even without his consent, the lower court was entitled to comply with the demand of the income-tax officer under section 226(4) of the income-tax act. there is no ground to interfere with the order of the sub-magistrate regarding the disposal of ..... , nagapattinam, filed a petitioner before the sub-magistrate, mayuram, praying that the amount in deposit claimed by mohamed ibrahim may be ordered to be handed over to the income-tax department towards the income-tax assessment on mohamed ibrahim for the year 1964-65. on november 21, 1964, mohamed ibrahim filed a memo before the sub-magistrate, mayuram, agreeing to the withdrawal of rs ..... . 1,70,000 from the court by the income-tax officer without prejudice to the rights of the partners of yakoobia traders company. in dealing with a transfer application filed by the petitioner, the sessions judge, east thanjavur division, directed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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