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!

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!

Mar 18 1954 (HC)

Ranchhoddas Karsondas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-18-1954

Reported in : AIR1954Bom543; (1954)56BOMLR722; ILR1954Bom984; [1954]26ITR105(Bom)

..... .' 9. mr. joshi has relied on a decision of the calcutta high court reported in commissioner of agricultural income-tax v. sultan ali gharami. the calcutta high court was not considering the income-tax act but it was considering provisions analogous to those contained in the income-tax act, and mr. justice chakravartti who delivered the judgment in that case has taken the view that the return was ..... view that a voluntary return made is not a return under section 22(3) merely because the return is of an income which is not assessable is, in our opinion, with great respect, unacceptable and contrary to the scheme of the income-tax act. therefore, in our opinion, the notice issued under section 34 was not a valid notice. 11. with regard to the ..... judge says : 'it is true that there is nothing to prevent a person from filing a return showing an income below the assessable limit, in response to a notice under section 24(1) [which corresponds to section 22(1) of the income-tax act] but the question we are considering is whether a particular return, not filed in fact under section 24(1) or ..... section 24(3) [which corresponds to section 22(3) of the act], is yet having regard to its section. in my opinion the return in the present .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 1954 (HC)

Tricumlal Girdharlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-12-1954

Reported in : [1954]25ITR565(Bom)

..... 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 indian 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 ..... act and in order to determine what are the profits and gains of a business under section 10 an assessee is entitled to show ..... case put forward before us by the assessee. strong reliance is placed on our decision in commissioner of income-tax, bombay city v. murlidhar mathurawalla mahajan association : [1948]16itr146(bom) . 5. in that case we laid down that : 'different business do not constitute different heads under the income-tax act. all business wherever carried on constitute one head which falls under section 10 of the ..... )(c). before we construe that section let us once again see what the scheme of the act is. section 3 and 4 are the charging sections and the charge is in respect of the total income of an assessee. section 6 lays down the various heads of income which are chargeable to income-tax and the following sections deal with the mode of computation of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1954 (SC)

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, West ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-11-1954

Reported in : AIR1955SC89; [1955]27ITR34(SC); [1955]1SCR972

..... acquiring this advantage which was certainly an enduring advantage was thus of the nature of capital expenditure and was not an allowable deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the income-tax act. 35. the further protection fee which was paid by the company to the lessor under clause 5 of the deed was also of a similar nature. it was no doubt ..... of the deed of the 14th november, 1938, were rightly disallowed as being expenditure of a capital nature and so not allowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the indian income-tax act.' 4. the high court answered the question in the affirmative and hence this appeal. 5. clauses 4 and 5 of the deed of lease may be here set out :- 4 ..... bhagwati, j.1. this appeal from the judgment and order of the high court of judicature at calcutta with leave under section 66-a(2) of the indian income-tax act raises an interesting question as to the line of demarcation between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure. 2. on the 14th november, 1938, the appellant company acquired from the government of ..... covenants and claimed to deduct the sums in the computation of its business profits under the provisions of section 10(2)(xv) of the income-tax act in the assessments for the assessment years 1945-46 and 1946-47. the income-tax officer, the appellate assistant commissioner and the appellate tribunal rejected the contention of the company and the following question, as ultimately reframed was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1954 (SC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Ratilal Nathalal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-1954

Reported in : AIR1954SC503; [1954]25ITR426(SC)

..... reserved to the said ramjibhai by a specific clause therein. ramjibhai enjoyed the income during his lifetime but the said income was being assessed as joint family income under section 16(1)(c) of the act and as an addition to the other admitted joint family income. 3. section 16 of the indian income-tax act was modified in 1939 and clause (c) of sub-section (1) thereof ..... jagannadhadas, j.1. this is an appeal under section 66a of the indian income-tax act from the judgment of the high court of bombay given on a reference to it by the income-tax appellate tribunal under section 66 of the act. 2. the proceedings relate to the four assessment years, 1942-43, 1943-44, 1944-45, and 1945-46, and arise under the following circumstances ..... as amended is as follows : 'in computing the total income of an assessee - .................................................................... all income arising to any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 1954 (SC)

Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-25-1954

Reported in : AIR1955SC271; (1954)26CTR(SC)736; [1954]26ITR736(SC)

..... an order of the high court of judicature at bombay, whereby the high court summarily dismissed an application made under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, requiring the income-tax appellate tribunal to state a case and refer to it the question of law said by the appellant to arise out of the order of the ..... in the result we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the high court dismissing the application of the appellant under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act, and remand the case to the high court with the direction that it should ask the tribunal to state a case and to refer to it the following ..... it sold some of the shares in the financial year 1943-44 and made a profit of rs. 1,42,025 in the assessment year 1944-45. the income-tax officer during that year included the profit made by sale of shares in the assessment of the hindu undivided family by arriving at the following finding :- 'the ..... of evidence on the record. this is what was said by it :- 'it appears to us that this transfer was effected with the object of evading income-tax, if it could be done so legally. if the shares had remained with the new firm, and if sales had been effected, the profits would have been ..... held that the transfer of shares of the value of rs. 18,34,586 by the new firm to the hindu undivided family was a device to evade income-tax. after examining the purchases and sales of shares by the hindu undivided family during the years 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945, the tribunal came to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1954 (HC)

Bhogilal Laherchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-19-1954

Reported in : AIR1955Bom16; (1954)56BOMLR718; ILR1954Bom1093

..... purpose of assessment of a partner the income-tax act has given an extended meaning to 'the share of a partner.' the share is not, what is understood in the ordinary language, a share in the profits. the share is ..... (3) you must construe sub-section (a) (ii) to mean that the share of a minor in the partnership, the share as understood by the income-tax act bearing the extended meaning, should be included in the income of the partner.mr. joshi is right that looking to sub-sections 16(1)(b) and 14(2)(a) and also section 23(5), for the ..... , the minor sons of the assessee, on the amounts standing to their credit in the firm are liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under s. 16(3)(a)(ii) of the indian income tax act? (2) whether the premia paid out of the moneys belonging to the minors, mahesh bhogilal and arvind bhogilal, for effecting insurance on their respective ..... )visedly not used the expression 'share of the minor in the partnership' in the extended sense in which it is used in the income-tax act. the legislature has advisedly used a different ex-pression and that expression is 'the income which arises to the minor directly or indirectly from his admission to the benefits of the partnership', and to say that this expression .....

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!


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