Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Year: 1954 Page 1 of about 287 results (0.092 seconds)

Mar 12 1954 (HC)

Trikamlal Girdharlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kut ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-12-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Bom25; (1954)56BOMLR675; ILR1954Bom976

..... taxable territories and therefore such loss of rs. 52,432 cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of section 14(2)(c).it is also argued that under the income-tax act what is taxed is each head of income. the dividend head is different from the business head and the business head having already been adjusted and there being no ..... . murlidhar mathurawala', air 1948 bom 403 (a). in that case we laid down that: 'different businesses do not constitute different heads under the income-tax act. all businesses wherever carried on constitute one head which falls under section 10 and in order to determine what are the profits and gains of a business under section 10, ..... following question of law was referred to the high court:'whether the assessee is required to pay tax on rs. 66,295 or rs. 1,18,727 at the rate appropriate to rs. 1,28,092 in view of ss. 4, 14(2) and 17, income-tax act?'we are concerned with the assessment year 1945-46, the corresponding accounting year being samvat year ..... 2000, and in the return which the assessee made of his income, he showed first the income which he had received in british india and that income was rs. 71,820 for business, rs. 88 for interest .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1954 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Ramsukh Motilal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-24-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Bom227; (1955)57BOMLR130; ILR1955Bom289

..... is delivered by the learned judge himself. in that case a certain notification was issued by the governor of bihar on 26-6-1940, retrospectively applying the provisions of the income-tax act to a certain division known as the chotanagpur division which was a partially excluded area, and a notice had been issued under section 22 (2) prior to the date when ..... of jurisdiction. it is true that the observations of the federal court, with respect, are rather wide and it may seem as if they apply to all notices under the income-tax act. but the decision is given in respect of section 22 (2) and again, with respect, the decision must be confined to the facts of that case.it is clear that ..... decision of the calcutta high court with regard to a notice under section 34 in -- 'commr. of agri. inc.- tax v. sultan ali : [1951]20itr432(cal) (c). the court there was considering the bengal agricultural income-tax act, 1944, which substantially corresponds with the income-tax act. in that case no notice was given under section 34, hut a notice was given under section 22 (2), and ..... validity of the assessment. but the question in the present case is not so much the invalidity of the notice under section 24 (2) (which corresponds with section 22(2) income-tax act), as the validity of the proceedings which were commenced without complying with the statutory requirement of a notice under section 38 (which corresponds with section 34 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1954 (HC)

ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bomb ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-13-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Bom230; (1955)57BOMLR98; [1954]26ITR686(Bom)

..... answered in its favour.4. now, turning to the merits of the case, it appears that this proviso which is relied upon by the department was incorporated in the indian income-tax act by act 8 of 1946 which came into force on 4-5-1946. therefore, this proviso was not in operation on 1-4-1946, when the assessment year of the assessee ..... is that there is nothing to prevent the parliament from making it clear that it wishes to give retrospective effect to an act which amends the indian income-tax act. it is always open to the parliament whenever it amends the indian income-tax act to provide that that amendment shall be operative as from the beginning of the assessment year, and our attention has been drawn ..... on that date.6. the contention, on the other hand, put forward by mr. joshi on behalf of the department is that once an amendment is introduced in the indian income-tax act, that amendment comes into force immediately and is applicable to all assessments which are made after the amendment is effected. in other words, the submission of mr. joshi is that ..... considered by the tribunal; it would be throwing an intolerable burden upon the assessee if we were to hold that although the assessee is not liable to tax under the provision of the indian income-tax act merely because it did not point out to the tribunal the specific provision of the law or it was ignorant of the specific provision of the law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 1954 (HC)

Shantikumar Narottam Morarji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Ci ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-23-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Bom234; (1955)57BOMLR121; ILR1955Bom366

..... is an assessable entity under the income-tax act, a firm is not a legal entity. in the eye of the law a firm is a compendious expression used to indicate that several persons constituting that firm, are carrying ..... this case is not carried on by the assessee but is carried on by the assessee along with a partner or partners. mr. joshi says that a firm, under the income-tax act is an assessable entity and therefore a distinction must be made between a business carried on by a firm and a business carried on by an individual. although a firm ..... of a registered firm is entitled to certain exemptions in his own right, it does not necessarily follow that therefore he is also entitled to the deductions permissible under the income-tax act, the question of deductions must be approached from a different point of view.6. the deduction in this case is claimed under section 10(2), and the first question that ..... you have a partnership business, the business is carried on by each of the partners, and the definition of a partnership in the partnership act has been incorporated in the income-tax act in section 2(6b). therefore, the contention that section 10(1) cannot apply to a partner in a registered firm is untenable, because he does carry on the business although .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1954 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Breach Candy Swimming Bath ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-30-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Bom250; (1955)57BOMLR84; ILR1955Bom268

..... not stated. therefore, what we have to decide is whether on the facts stated the assessee is entitled to exemption from tax, under the relevant provision of the income-tax act, and it we come to the conclusion that the relevant provision of the income-tax act is section. 4(3)(ia) and not section 4(3)(ia), it is open to us to do so under ..... have been clearly laid down in the two important cases of the privy council dealing with the question of charity under the indian income-tax act. the first is the tribune case reported in -- 'tribune press, lahore v. commissioner of income-tax, punjab . (c). in that case the owner of a press and a newspaper created a trust of that newspaper and the object of ..... object.now, it has often been said, and it is unnecessary to repeat it, that charity defined under the indian income-tax act is of much wider application than charity as understood in english law under the statute of elizabeth. under the indian income-tax act 'charitable purposes' is defined and the definition is an inclusive definition as 'relief to the poor, education, medical relief and ..... ) which removes these difficulties and anomalies and which is an interpretation which reconciles clauses (i) and (ia) and presents a fairly complete and coherent picture of this aspect of the income-tax act. now, it seems to us that section 4(3)(i) deals with property which is held under trust or other legal obligation from which an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1954 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Jagadishprasad Ramnath

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-26-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Bom255; (1955)57BOMLR77

..... passed by the income-tax officer levying penal interest under s. 18a(8), income-tax act? chagla, c.j.1. the income-tax officer imposed penal interest upon the assessee under section 18a(8), income-tax act in the sum of rs. 3549-11-0 for the assessment year 1947-48 and a sum of ..... questions of law were referred to the high court:- (1) whether the order passed by the appellate assistant commissioner dated 13-2-1952 is an order passed under s. 31, income-tax act and an appeal lies to the tribunal from it?(2) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case an appeal lies to the appellate assistant commissioner from an order ..... state had got priority over all debts of a company, the company in this case being liable to pay advance tax, and what was urged before the madras high court was that an advance tax was not a tax within the meaning of the income-tax act in respect of which the state had a prior charge. this contention was rejected by the madras high court ..... partner in a firm styled govindram ramnath co., did not pay to the income-tax authorities advance tas as required by s. 18a(3), indian income-tax act, 1922. the income-tax officer, therefore, levied penal interest for non-payment of advance tax for the relevant two years of assessment under s. 18a (8 of the act. the assessee appealed to the appellate assistant commissioner in respect of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1954 (HC)

Navinchandra Mafatlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-18-1954

Reported in : AIR1954Bom550; (1954)795BOMLR56; [1955]27ITR245(Bom)

..... to show cause against (sic) (sic) be done; and no doubt when action is(sic) the prejudice of an assesses there are(sic) sections in the income-tax act which pro-(sic) for notice being given to the assessee before(sic) action is taken. but. mr. joshi's contention(sic) that the giving of such ..... the result would be that the assessee, viz, the shareholder, would have no right of appeal against any assessment made on him, for under section 30, income-tax act, the only right of appeal allowed against an order under sub-section (1) of section 23a is to the company and not to the shareholder.now, ..... assistant commissioner and from the appellate assistant commissioner to the tribunal, with a right of reference to the high court in the manner provided by the income-tax act. mr. palkhivala's contention is that if we were to hold that section 23a is a self-contained section for the entire process of assessment, ..... on a reference against an order made under section 23a. what was argued in that case was that the order of the income-tax officer was barred under section 34(2), income-tax act. we repelled that argument taking the view that the order was not made in course of assessment under section 23, but it ..... was made under the special powers given to the income-tax officer under section 23a, and there is no provision in the income-tax act which lays down the period of limitation after which no order can be made under section 23a and therefore the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1954 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I Vs. Ramsukh Motilal, Bombay

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-24-1954

Reported in : [1955]27ITR54(Bom)

..... calcutta high court with regard to a notice under section 34, reported in commissioner of agricultural income-tax v. sultan ali. the court there was considering the bengal agricultural income-tax act, 1944, which substantially corresponds with the indian income-tax act. in that case no notice was given under section 34 but a notice was given ..... that the observations of the federal court, with respect, are rather wise and it may seem as if they apply to all notices under the income-tax act. but the decision is given in respect of section 22 (2) and again, with respect, the decision must be confined to the facts of ..... that case a certain notification was issued by the governor of bihar on the 26th may, 1940, retrospectively applying the provisions of the indian income-tax act to a certain division known as the chotanagpur division which was a partially excluded area and a notice had been issued under section 22 (2 ..... case is not so much the invalidity of the notice under section 24 (2) (which corresponds with section 22 (2) of the income-tax act), as the validity of the proceedings which were commenced without complying with the statutory requirement of a notice under section 38 (which corresponds with section ..... 34 of the income-tax act). the decision of the federal court does not cover an omission of a step which the statute regards as a condition precedent to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 1954 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Ahmuty and Co. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-21-1954

Reported in : [1955]25CompCas14(Bom); [1955]27ITR63(Bom)

..... correct, then that reasoning, far from supporting mr. joshi, is against him, because the ratio of that decision as we see it is that inasmuch as the income-tax act has provided a separate head for income from securities, that income cannot be treated as income falling under any other head. if the intention of the legislature was that dividend should be a separate head of ..... divisional bench of the madras high court. the distinction between that case and the case that we are considering is apparent. whereas 'securities' is a separate head under the indian income-tax act, 'dividends' is not a separate head; and the view taken by the madras high court was that inasmuch as interest on securities was charged to ..... income-tax act, section 16 (2), section 18(3d), section 18(5), section 20 and section 49b, to satisfy us that ..... , the contention of mr. joshi is that looking to the scheme of the income-tax act dividends constitute a separate income which must be separately shown under section 12 and which can never form part of business income under section 10. mr. joshi further contends that the income-tax treats the dividend income as income per se. mr. joshi has drawn our attention to various sections of the indian .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1954 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Jagdish Prasad Ramnath

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-26-1954

Reported in : [1955]27ITR192(Bom)

..... state had got priority over all debts or a company, the company in this case being liable to pay advance tax, and what was urged before the madras high court was that an advance tax was not a tax within the meaning of the income-tax act in respect of which the state had a prior charge. this contention was rejected by the madras high court ..... act for imposing liability upon the taxpayer, and their lordships point out that the indian income-tax act is no exception in this respect. therefore, ' ..... widest connotation. the privy council in a well-known passage in commissioner of income-tax, bombay presidency and aden v. khemchand ramdas points out that one of the peculiarities of most income-tax acts is that the word 'assessment' is used as meaning sometimes the computation of income, sometimes the determination of the tax payable and sometimes the whole of the procedure laid down in the ..... assessment' may not only be the computation of the income, it may not only be the determination of the amount of tax payable, but it may refer to the whole procedure laid down in the act for imposing liability upon the taxpayer. but, in our .....

Tag this Judgment!


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