Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 46ITR1129(Bom)
..... v.s. desai, j.1. this is a reference in compliance with the requisition of this court under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act at the instance of the assessee. 2. the assessee, shri harilal harjivan, is a partner in a firm known as 'f. cornaglia & co ..... the revenue, has argued that the tribunal had refused to allow this contention to be raised before it, because it has not been raised before the income-tax officer or the appellate assistant commissioner. whether to allow a new contention to be raised for the first time in the appeal before the tribunal, or ..... its return and also an application under section 26a for the registration of the firm, which was constituted under the deed of the 4th april, 1950. the income-tax officer was of the opinion that the partnership firm was not genuine, and the business belonged exclusively to the assessee, and not to the firm. he, ..... not belong to the assessment year 1951-52 and, therefore, could not be assessed to tax during that year. this contention was rejected by the tribunal, firstly, on the ground that since it was not raised before the income-tax officer or before the appellate assistant commissioner, it would not be allowed to be raised ..... , the amount was made up by the contributions made by himself, his father and his two brothers, was not accepted by the income-tax officer. he, therefore, held that the amount of rs. 50,000 was income from an undisclosed source in the hands of the assessee and accordingly brought the said amount to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1959Bom303; (1958)60BOMLR980; ILR1958Bom1172; 34ITR204(Bom)
..... . joshi says that the legislature wanted to tax this income whether in fact the income was received by the assessee or not; and, therefore, ..... that date, and therefore, it must be included in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1953-54. we agree with mr. joshi that there are various provisions in the income-tax act under which an assessee has to pay tax on an income which is purely notional and which he has never received, and mr ..... therefore, answer the first question submitted to us in the negative. 8. questions 2 and 3 must be answered in the light of the decision in commr. of income-tax, bombay city ii v.shanti k. maheshwari, : air1958bom478 . 9. question no. 2 in the affirmative. 10. question no. 3 in the affirmative in the light ..... if in law, the dividend has been paid, then it must be considered to be the income of the year in which it is paid. 4.the tribunal relied on a judgment of this court reported in commissioner of income-tax, bombay city v. laxmidas mulraj khatau 1948 16 itr 248 : (air 1948 bom 404), ..... has been made. as soon as a declaration of a dividend is made, the assessee must be deemed to have been paid the dividend income and he must pay tax on that income.5. now, turning to the judgment in khatau mills's case, (1948) 16 itr 248: (air 1948 bom 404), that was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 81ITR293(Bom)
..... by a common judgment and the parties also have not objected to that procedure being adopted. both the reference are under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. 2. the question of law referred in the first reference is : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ..... of the hindu undivided family. in view of this judgment of the tribunal, the first reference has been made at the instances of the commissioner of income-tax. 11. the question of law as referred appears to have been framed through some mistake inasmuch as it assumes that the tribunal has held that ..... his status as hindu undivided family instead of his status declared in the earlier years as individual under misapprehension. it states that, as known to the income-tax authorities, the hindu undivided family of their late ancestor kasturchand become divided on aso vad 30, s.y. 1997 and all members of the family thereupon ..... the karta and in the return included his shares of the profits of all the said four firms. each of them forwarded the return to the income-tax authorities along with a covering letter dated the 26th october, 1956. the contents of the covering letters are identical. each letters states that each had ..... . all the coparceners of that joint family became divided as on aso vad 30, s. y. 1997. champaklal as well as mulchand were assessed to income-tax as individuals in respect of the twelve assessment years 1944-45 to 1955-56 relating to the accounting years s.y. 1999 to s.y. 2010. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 81ITR413(Bom)
..... mody, actg.c.j. 1. this is a reference under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. 2. the relevant assessment year is 1960-61, the accounting year being the year ended 31st march, 1960. the assessee is an individual ..... from the principle laid down by this court for valuation of bonus shares issued by a company to holders of original shares in the case of commissioner of income-tax v. dalmia investment co. ltd. 15. the above observations of the supreme court appearing at page 654 hold that the correct method for evaluating the ..... decide the questions arising in this reference four judgments of the supreme court have been brought to our notice. the first judgment is that in commissioner of income-tax v. dalmia investment co. ltd. in that case bonus ordinary shares were issued in in respect of ordinary shares held in the company by the assessee ..... there was a loss and no profit. 6. the decision of the tribunal being against the department, this reference has been made at the instance of the commissioner of income-tax, bombay city i, bombay. 7. the questions of law referred are : '1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount ..... has been approved and followed by the supreme court in two subsequent judgments relating to the issue of bonus shares in commissioner of income-tax v. gold mohore investment co. ltd. and commissioner of income-tax v. gold mohore investment co. ltd. 12. the fourth judgment is that of miss dhun dadabhoy kapadia v. commissioner of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 81ITR528(Bom)
..... reformulate the following two questions : '1. whether provision for gratuity is permissible for deduction under section 10(2) (xv) or section 10(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 2. if the answer to question no. 1 is in the affirmative, how is the amount of liability to be quantified ?' 15. in our opinion, ..... mody, j.1. this is a reference under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. 2. this reference relates to three assessment years 1952-53, 1955-56 and 1956-57, the relevant accounting years being the calendar ..... be stated that the judgments of the house of lords in southern railway of peru v. owen and of the madras high court in commissioner of income-tax v. indian metal and metallurgical corporation show that it is conceivably possible that a scientific method of calculation may, given the requisite facts, be possible. ..... on two occasions when it filed its said two appeals. mr. dastur, however, contended that all the three authorities, viz., the income-tax officer, the appellate assistant commissioner and the income-tax appellate tribunal, rejected the assessee's contention on the ground that no provision against gratuity could be allowed as a deduction in this ..... or correct. in the circumstances the provision is disallowed and actual payments as and when made allowed to the company.' 6. this passage shows that the income-tax officer rejected the assessee's claim because of two reasons : firstly, that the claim for deduction as made by the assessee was on the basis of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 81ITR609(Bom)
..... the business are not deductible, the operation of the proviso to section 13 of the income-tax act would be attracted : bombay cycle stores co. ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax. it may also be added, as was held by this court in commissioner of income-tax v. mcmillan & co. that the income-tax officer, even if he accepts the assessee's method of accounting, is not bound ..... for decision in this reference under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, is as follows : 'was there any material on the basis of which it can reasonably be said that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the method of accounting employed is such that the income, profits and gains cannot properly be deduced therefrom ?' 2. the applicant ..... of his total sales. the assessee did not take that practical step even until the stage of the hearing before the appellate tribunal was completed. in that connection, the income-tax officer made his findings on the surrounding circumstances and facts as already recited above. the appellate assistant commissioner definitely held that the method of accounting adopted by the assessee and ..... several other circumstances and assessed the assessee on footing of his having made gross profits of 10 per cent. 4. the appellate assistant commissioner accepted the above finding of the income-tax officer and in that connection observed that '..... even though his sales during the year exceeded rs. 7 lakhs, he has not attempted to maintain a quantitative reconciliation with .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 47ITR402(Bom)
..... tambe, j. 1. this is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the income-tax act. we are here concerned with the assessment year 1949-50, the account year ending 31st march, 1949. the assessee was appoint as manager as ..... to the reasons or the ground on which the claim of the employer to allow this amount as revenue expenditure was rejected by the income-tax officer. the reasons given by the income-tax officer in short are : the employer was a shrewd man of business. in the year 1948, there was a big increase in ..... . 8 dated 24th march, 1928. we would hereafter refers to this notification as the 'notification'. this claim of the assessee was rejected both by the income-tax officer and the appellate assistant commissioner, the appellate assistant commissioner taking the view that the commission paid to the assessee was not paid out of profits, but ..... purpose of business within the meaning of section 10(2) (xv) of the act. he also referred us to two decisions of this court in commissioner of income-tax v. mulraj karsondas and ramanlal c. parekh v. v. krishnamachari, commissioner of income-tax and the decision of the madras high court in v. narayanaswami iyer v. commissioner ..... (xv) of the act. it is indeed true that the employer had shown in the profit and loss account payment of commission as expenses and had claimed it in his assessment as revenue expenditure and that has been disallowed. but that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the income-tax officer had disallowed the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 82ITR287(Bom)
..... of rs. 2,00,000 in samvat year 1996 at home as contended by the assessee. 4. a similar notice was issued to the assessee under section 34 of the income-tax act with respect to the assessment year 1946-47. during this period another amount of rs. 1,50,000 also came for consideration. explanations were given by the assessee in these ..... assessment year 1945-46 and 1946-47 also. the original assessment for the assessment year 1945-46 was made on march 13, 1946. subsequently proceedings under section 34 of the income-tax act, 1922, were stated against the assessee, seth ramnath daga, and notice under section 34 was served on its karta on march 16, 1954. the notice under section 34 was issued ..... padhye, j.1. this reference has been made by the income-tax appellate tribunal under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, on the requisition made by this court on april 24, 1962, in income-tax applications nos. 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 of 1961. two questions have been referred by the tribunal. they are : '(1) is there any material on record ..... a few, they are : perianna pillai v. commissioner of income-tax, kaniram ganpat rai v. commissioner of income tax, tejmal bhojraj v. commissioner of income-tax, omar salay mohammed sait v. commissioner of income-tax, abdul caffor trust v. commissioner of income-tax, colombo and joint family of udayan chinubhai, etc. v. commissioner of income-tax. in kaniram ganpat rai v. commissioner of income-tax, it was held by the high court of patna .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 167ITR272(Bom)
..... the sanction of the central board of direct taxes. on march 22, 1973, the income-tax officer passed an order of reassessment and brought to tax the value of the said ..... , on february 15, 1969, to the central board of direct taxes that the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1952-53 be reopened by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the income-tax act so as to bring to tax the value of the said gold. the assessment was reopened upon ..... alone that we decide this reference. we find it unnecessary in the circumstances to go into any other question.as we have stated, the income-tax officer who handled the individual assessment of keshrimal reopened the assessment consequent upon the seizure of the said gold. the proceedings in that behalf are ..... a protective basis as an alternative to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1969-70 which was substantive.it appears that the income-tax officer assessing keshrimal in his individual capacity also had, at the same time, initiated reassessment proceedings and these proceeding are still pending.against the ..... and their son, nemkumar. the search culminated in seizure of primary gold weighing 42.424 kgs.3. on july 13 and 16, 1968, the income-tax authorities searched the same premises and seized other gold ornaments and jewellery. with relation to this seizure, this reference is not concerned.4. in relation .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom459; (1957)59BOMLR1; ILR1957Bom157
..... the jurisdiction was challenged beyond time, and on that the petitioners have come before us on this petition.2. section 64(1) of the income tax act lays down which income-tax officer has to assess a particular assessee, and sub-section (3) of section 64 provides:''where any question arises under this section as to ..... chagla, c.j.1. the first respondent served a notice upon the petitioners under section 34 of the indian income tax act dated 5-1-1956. the notice was served on 13-1-1956. by this notice the petitioners were asked to submit their ..... question to the commissioner, and what is referred to the commissioner is the determination, again, on merits. therefore, it is clear that if the income-tax officer comes to the conclusion that the objection taken by the assessee is barred by limitation there is no obligation upon him to refer anything to the ..... proviso to section 64(3) is in the following terms:'provided further that if the place of assessment is called in question by an assessee the income-tax officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under this sub-section before assessment is made'.therefore, ..... palkhivala's contention is sound the objection to the jurisdiction has been taken beyond time. admittedly, the letter of the petitioners challenging the jurisdiction of the income-tax officer reached him on 31-3-1956, two days beyond the extended time, and in order to get over this difficulty mr. palkhivala has contended that .....Tag this Judgment!