Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 80ITR491(Bom)
..... the said other partners by overriding title or that in the alternative they were allowable as deductions in computing the assessee's total income on ordinary principles of commercial accounting or under section 10(2)(xv) of the income-tax act or otherwise ?' 12. this high court by its order dated 5th december, 1968, held that the said decision of the supreme court in ..... dulichand laxminarayan v. commissioner of income-tax applied when a firm sought to be a partner with another individual or firm or joint family, but that ..... . valiram sons on the other which could be mutually exercised or enforced and that therefore the ratio of the judgment of the supreme court in murlidhar himatsingka v. commissioner of income-tax does not apply. this contention of mr. joshi, however, emphasised only one aspect and does not take into consideration the entire situation or the entire evidence relating to the ..... the said deed of partnership relating to the new prabhat silk mills no. 1. 7. all the above, four partnership are partnerships registered for the purposes of income-tax. 8. in their respective individual assessments to income-tax for the assessment year 1948-49, the accounting period being 1st april, 1947, to 16th december, 1948, the share of profits received by each of rijhumal .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 81ITR84(Bom)
..... mody, j.1. this is a reference under section 66(1) of the income-tax act, 1922. the assessment year relevant to this reference is 1947-48, the corresponding previous year being the year which ended on diwali ..... case, a return in answer to a general notice under section 22(1) was filed. no assessment was made on that return. subsequently, however, the income-tax officer initiated action under section 34. the supreme court held that the notice issued under section 34 was improper, because with the return already filed, there ..... order in connection with that voluntary return. he contended that when in respect of any year a return has been voluntarily submitted for assessment, the income-tax officer cannot chose to ignore the return and any notice of reassessment and consequent assessment under section 34 ignoring the return is invalid. in support ..... learned counsel for the revenue, has advanced the same arguments, raised the same contentions and has made the same applications as he had made in that income-tax reference no. 67 of 1965 we have, in our judgment in that matter which we have just delivered, rejected whose arguments, contentions and applications. it ..... returns on 12th december, 1960, under protest raising an objection that the action taken was without jurisdiction and time-barred. on 30th december, 1960, the income-tax officer completed the assessments of the three minors under section 23(3) read with section 34(1) (b). the appellate assistant commissioner accepted the contention .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1959Bom304; (1958)60BOMLR847; ILR1958Bom1167
..... 'source' what we meant was the specific source from which a particular income sprung or arose. 5. the supreme court had to consider this judgment very recently and, ..... assess income from the other two branches at jalpaiguri and calcutta, because the i. t. o. had brought to assessment the business income of the assessee. therefore, it is clear that what we meant by 'source' was not source in the sense of head of income as used in the income-tax act. by ..... passage from our judgment: 'it is clear that the appellate assistant commissioner has been constituted a revising authority against the decisions of the income-tax officer; a revising authority not in the narrow sense of revising what is the subject-matter of the appeal, not in the sense ..... held by us to be irrelevant. this is perfectly clear, because in our judgment we considered the case of jagarnath therani v. commissioner of income-tax, (1925) 2 itc 4: air 1925 pat 408, and with respect, agreed with that judgment. in that case the assessee had three ..... with respect, it has approved of our judgment in narrondas manordass' case, : air1958bom35 and it has itself deduced the principle which emerges from this judgment. in commissioner of income-tax .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Bom)237; 161ITR82(Bom); 24TAXMAN486(Bom)
..... provisions of section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922.2. in the earlier reference, the questions raised are at the instance of the assessee. they read as follows :'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was justified in confirming the enhancement to the income made by the appellate assistant commissioner by the ..... in relation to the account of shivshankar and company in the assessee's books of account. in the submission of mr. jetly, learned counsel for the revenue, the income-tax officer had considered the income of the assessee from its yarn business. the transactions between the asses - see and shivshankar and company were in respect of the yarn business. when, therefore, the ..... be sustained.12. mr. dalvi, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted before us that the appellate assistant commissioner could have gone into only those items as were considered by the income-tax officer from the point of view of their taxability and that it was not open to the appellate assistant commissioner to go outside the record of assessment which comprised the ..... made to them. the appellate assistant commissioner concluded by ordering that pending the receipt of the remand report 'this appeal will stand by'.7. in his remand report, the income-tax officer, on the basis of the evidence that he had gathered, concluded that ganesh trading company and mahavir trading company were brought into existence by the assessee itself to divert .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 209ITR779(Bom)
..... d.r. dhanuka j.1. by this reference under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, the income-tax appellate tribunal has referred the following question to this court for opinion. 'whether, on the facts and the circumstances ..... messrs. devyani dyeing and printing works. it is not necessary to examine this contention. even if there was no fresh material before the income-tax officer, the income-tax officer could record a finding on the issue under consideration while finalising the assessment orders for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63 ..... messrs. devyani dyeing and printing works was a genuine third party firm. being aggrieved by the said order, the income-tax officer filed a second appeal before the income-tax appellate tribunal. the income-tax appellate tribunal interpreted the earlier order of the tribunal concerning the assessment year 1960-61 and came to the conclusion ..... and heard learned counsel for the assessee at length. in our opinion, the tribunal was more than justified in reaching the conclusion that the income-tax officer was not precluded in law from recording a finding on the issue under consideration while dealing with the assessment proceedings for the assessment ..... proceedings for the assessment year 1960-61. 4. in the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63, the income-tax officer examined the matter in greater detail and recorded a positive finding to the effect that the business carried on in the name of messrs .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 35ITR183(Bom)
..... deciding whether section 23a is applicable to this case and whether the income-tax officer has rightly exercised his power, this sum of rs. 1,63,377 should be ..... tribunal was concerned. now, in arriving at the assessable income of the assessee, the income-tax officer took into consideration a sum of rs. 1,63,377, which were profits, according to the department, earned by the assessee under section 42 (2) of the income-tax act and the contention of the assessee is that in ..... the trouble arises. now, the view taken by the department is that even under the second part of section 23a (1), the profits which the income-tax officer has to consider are profits which would include the sum of rs. 1,63,377. one has only to state the proposition to realise ..... section 23a. 2. now, let us first look at the scheme of section 23a. the first condition for the exercise of the power of the income-tax officer is the distribution of dividend by the company of less than the statutory percentage, which, at the relevant time, was 60 per cent. and ..... the substance of the matter is this that for the purpose of the second part of section 23a, when the income-tax officer is considering the smallness of the profits, when the income-tax officer is considering the profits and is considering whether it would be reasonable or unreasonable to declare a larger dividend, the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1990)90CTR(Bom)135; 189ITR774(Bom)
..... d.r. dhanuka j.1. this reference is made by the income-tax appellate tribunal, bombay bench 'b' bombay, under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, in pursuance of an order of this court dated july 18, 1985, in income-tax application no. 599 of 1982 at the instance of the assessee. the question for our consideration is as under :'whether, on the facts and ..... film and was thus a part of the capital outlay. the matter was carried in second appeal by the department before the income-tax appellate tribunal. on this aspect, the income-tax appellate tribunal held that the order of the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) was erroneous. the tribunal set aside the order of the commissioner and held that the receipt of the said subsidy in ..... dealt with the question as to whether the receipt of such subsidy would constitute a revenue receipt or capital receipt in the hands of the recipient for the purpose of income-tax. it was observed by the board in the said circular that the scheme under consideration was framed by the government for the growth of industries and not for supplementing the ..... the assessee from the government of maharashtra constituted a revenue receipt and was, therefore, taxable. being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner of income-tax (appeals)- ii, bombay. by this well-considered order dated january 25, 1980, the commissioner held that the said amount was not taxable. during the course of his order, the commissioner .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 186ITR412(Bom)
..... the grounds that the same did not fall under the provisions of any section, viz. section 28 and/or section 36 and/ or section 37 of the income-tax act, 1961 ?'2. the assessee-company is a non-resident company. it is engaged in the business of manufacture of accounting and computing machines which are sold or ..... clause (2) of the agreement dated october 23, 1962, clearly indicated, was being acquired for its existing business. moreover, as pointed out by shri dastur, the income-tax appellate tribunal has rejected the claim of the assessee for a reason other than this reason. accordingly, we proceed on the assumption that the factory premises were being acquired ..... off by the assessee-company.3. the assessee claimed the aforesaid amount of rs. 1,08,088 as a business loss. the claim was disallowed by the income-tax officer and the disallowance was confirmed by the appellate assistant commissioner who, inter alia, observed that the agreement had nothing to do with the current business of ..... decisions, according to him, were distinguishable as in those decisions, the connection between the expenditure and the business was very proximate. for instance, in the allahabad case cit v. jwala pd. radha kishan : 107itr540(all) , the assessee was a sole selling agent and was earning huge profits from the persons from whom he ..... t.d. sugla, j.1. the income-tax appellate tribunal has referred only one question of law to us for opinion in this case at the instance of the assessee. the question reads .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 105ITR669(AP); 41STC223(AP)
..... revenue in regard to the amount of refund, i.e., rs. 8,228, as includible in the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1968-69 under section 41(1) of the income-tax act, 1961. in view of this concession, we answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue ..... by the supreme court, the amount was not yet paid. therefore, the decision of the supreme court in kedarnath jute mfg. co. ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax : 82itr363(sc) .clearly applies to this case. 6. sri swamy referred us to a number of other decisions it is not, however, necessary to ..... there is no doubt that the assessee in this case followed the mercantile method of accounting. it is so clearly stated in the assessment order of the income-tax officer dated january 3, 1969. therefore, the appellate assistant commissioner went wrong in thinking that it was cash basis that was followed by the assessee. ..... of rs. 8,228. they were not accounted for as trading receipts. when called upon to explain the omission, it stated before the income-tax officer that the sales-tax account in its entirety is recorded as liability since it had to be paid. the dispute relating thereto was pending before the supreme court ..... . 3. on the first question sri polavarapu rama rao for the revenue contended that the sum of rs. 17,710 was admittedly collected as sales-tax and so it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All208; 22CompCas322(All); 22ITR470(All)
..... v. bhargava, j. 1. this is a reference by the income-tax appellate tribunal under section 66(1), income-tax act. the assessee is a limited banking company having among its objects the following. clause (a) to give loans or advances on personal or ..... loss could not be treated as a bad debt. the circumstances in the present case are entirely different. in this case, it is clear that the income-tax tribunal was fully justified in inferring that the property acquired from the rohelkhand ice factory was sold by the assessee as payment of the loan advanced and ..... of the lord chancellor in -- 'bomford v. osborne', (1942 10 i t r (sup) 27) and the views expressed in -- 'lalit ram mangilal v. commissioner of income-tax, u. p.', : 18itr286(all) are, in no way, divergent. even the lord chancellorwas of the view that, where conclusions of facts are deduced from pure findings ..... etc., of the match factory by the assessee could or could not be held to be an adventure in the nature of a trade. what the income-tax authorities have held is that the acquisition and sale of this property by the assessee was a transaction entered into by the assessee 'in the course of ..... a transaction of moneylending business.learned counsel, in this connection, referred us to a decision of this very bench in -- 'gurucharan prasad jagannath prasad v. commissioner of income-tax u. p. and ajmer-merwara lucknow : 19itr42(all) . the facts in that case were, however, quite different. in that case, the most important .....Tag this Judgment!