Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Year: 1958 Page 12 of about 475 results (0.101 seconds)

Nov 24 1958 (SC)

M.P. Davis Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-24-1958

Reported in : AIR1959SC719; [1959]35ITR803(SC)

..... being managed by his brother a his agent; and this was on the basis of principal and agent or master and servant. in the assessment proceedings under the coorg agricultural income-tax act for the year 1951-52, p. w. davis appeared as the agent of the appellant. similarly, for the assessment year 1952-53, a claim for change of status was made ..... and his brother had agreed to become partners under a partnership deed (exhibit 12) and asked for the registration of the said firm under section 26 of the coorg agricultural income-tax act (1 of 1951). according to the appellant the partnership in question had been constituted for the purposes inter alia of the joint working of the said estate as also for ..... coffee, citrus and pepper and other businesses as specified in the document. the relevant provisions of the coorg act correspond to the provisions of the indian income-tax act; section 26 of the said act provides for the registration of firms for the purpose of the act. the agricultural income-tax officer, coorg, refused to register the firm on the ground that the document did not created the ..... 's brother was no more than his servant under the said document. this order was confirmed by the deputy commissioner of agricultural income-tax, coorg. the appellant then applied to the commissioner of agricultural income-tax, coorg, under section 54(2) of the act to draw up and refer his case to the mysore high court. the question thus referred to the high court was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 1958 (SC)

Dhandhania Kedia and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-17-1958

Reported in : AIR1959SC219; [1959]35ITR400(SC); [1959]Supp1SCR204

..... venkatarama aiyar, j.1. this is an appeal against the judgment of the high court of rajasthan in a reference under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the act. 2. the facts, so far as they are material, are these : the appellant is a resident of what was once the independent state of udaipur. there was in ..... said to arise out of its order. moreover, whether the mewar industries ltd., is a company as defined in the indian income-tax act is itself a question over which the parties are in controversy. the definition of 'company' under the indian income-tax act has undergone several changes from time to time, and on the relevant date is stood as follows : '2(6) 'company' means ..... years' in section 2(6a)(c) in the light of the definition of 'previous year' in section 2(11) of the act, the years 1943-44 to 1948-49 cannot be held to be previous years, because the indian income- tax act came into force in the state of rajasthan only on april 1, 1950, and prior to that date there was at no ..... the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the aforesaid sum of rs. 26,000 was liable to be taxed in the assessee's hands as dividend within the meaning of that term in section 2(6a)(c) of the indian income-tax act.' 3. the reference was heard by wanchoo, c.j. and modi, j. who by their judgment dated august 24 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 1958 (HC)

P. Orr and Sons, Madras Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-28-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Mad372

..... that ended with 31-3-1949, the assessee claimed this payment of rs. 1,25,000 as an allowable deduction under section 10 (2) (xv) of the income-tax act. that claim was disallowed by the income-tax officer. the assessee appealed with success to the assistant commissioner. the appeal preferred by the department was allowed by the tribunal. the tribunal, however, referred the following ..... particular case is of the nature of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure in which latter event, only it would be a deductible allowance under section 10 (2) (xv) of the income-tax act.' 10. mr. rama rao sahib learned counsel for the department was right when he pointed out i that the object, to achieve which the assessee expended the sum in question ..... it had to consider.9. the approach to a problem of this kind is that laid down by the supreme court in assam bengal cement co. ltd. v. commr. of income-tax, west-bengal : [1955]27itr34(sc) :'the aim and object of the expenditure would determine the character of the expenditure whether it is a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. the ..... 372, a sum of 19200 was paid to a retiring director. the company claimed that as a deduction from its profits for income-tax purposes. in upholding that claim lord hansworth m.r. observed at pp. 420-421 :'it is a payment made in the course of business, dealing with a particular difficulty which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1958 (HC)

Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Raj Singh

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-01-1958

Reported in : AIR1960Bom12; [1959]37ITR264(Bom)

..... came to know of the order, which is january 27, 1956, and, therefore, his application is within time. 3. mr. joshi has drawn our attention to various sections in the income-tax act where the legislature has expressly provided that limitation should run from the date of the service of the order, and mr. joshi says that if the legislature in section 33a ..... possibly have appealed. 4. turning to the authorities, the madras high court has taken the same view of the section in a recent judgment in muthian chettiar v. commissioner of income-tax and the learned chief justice in his judgment points out at page 404 that the interpretation of the madras high court was based upon a salutary and just principle, viz ..... had an opportunity of knowing the order, and, therefore, must be presumed to have had knowledge of the order. 5. the punjab high court in mahabir parsed v. commissioner of income-tax has taken a different view, but with respect, that view is obiter because what was held by that court was that the particular order made could not be challenged as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 1958 (SC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhurangya Coal Co.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-23-1958

Reported in : AIR1959SC254; [1958]34ITR802(SC)

..... , that precisely was the determination made by the appellate tribunal. 4. the matter then came before the high court of patna on a reference under section 66(1) of the income-tax act, at the instance of the appellant. there the contention was raised that the differentiation between movable and immovables on which the judgment of the tribunal rested had not been made ..... in part 1. these are the facts material for the purposes of the present appeal. 2. on the 1st april, 1946, section 12b of the indian income-tax act came into force. it is as follows : 'the tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'capital gains' in respect of any profits or gains arising from the sale, exchange or transfer of ..... venkatarama aiyar, j.1. this is an appeal against the judgment of the high court of patna in a reference under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. the respondent is a firm and was the owner of a colliery at a place called bhurangya. on the 16th march, 1946, it entered into an agreement to sell ..... may, 1946, and that, therefore, their value should also be taken into account in assessing the chargeable income under section 12b of the income-tax act. the argument in support of this contention might thus be stated : 6. section 2, sub-clause (7), of the sale of goods act defines 'goods' as follows : 'goods' means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1958 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-14-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom96; (1958)60BOMLR960; ILR1958Bom1162

..... the penalty proceedings and ultimately upon the court of appeal from that decision. in our opinion, that contention is untenable. it has often been said that each proceeding under the income-tax act is a self-contained proceeding and the findings in one proceedings do not become binding in respect of other proceedings. now, it is difficult to understand why this well-known ..... /-jaswantlal chimanlal rs. 2,534/-jayantilal chimanlal rs. 2,534/-sunderlal chimanlal rs. 2,534/-the last three being the sons of chimanlal. this entry was found by the income-tax officer, and when the assessee was called to explain this entry, his explanation was that his brother chimanlal had sold ornaments of his first wife and had kept with him ..... be found in a judgment of the allahabad high court in dwarka prasad v. commissioner of income-tax : [1953]24itr410(all) (a). what the allahabad high court held was that although the findings in the assessment proceedings may constitute a material on which the income-tax officer may act, in any penalty proceedings they do not constitute res judicata. therefore, it is perfectly open ..... to the income-tax officer in the penalty proceedings to consider his own finding that this receipt constituted an income for the assessment year, but he is not bound by that finding. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1958 (HC)

H.A. Shah and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-25-1958

Reported in : [1958]34ITR401(Bom)

..... must be exercised within a specific period, then the legislature would have so provided. but we look in vain for any provision in the income-tax act within lays down any period of limitation for the exercise of the appellate powers of the appellate assistant commissioner. in our opinion, in exercising ..... whether the addition of the sum of the rs. 1,50,000 by the appellate assistant commissioner was barred by section 34(3) of the income-tax act now, the contention urged by mr. palkhivala is that section 34(3) lays down a period of limitation for making an order of assessment, ..... case under section 34. we are not dealing with a case where the appellate assistant commissioner is seeking to assessee a new source of income, which the income-tax officer has not assessed; and another significant feature about this lahore case is that the lahore high court held and, with respect rightly, ..... power at any time. 5. mr. palkhivala has referred to a judgment of the lahore high court reported in ganeshi lal & sons v. commissioner of income-tax : [1938]6itr390(all) . that was a case which dealt with entirely different facts, and the principle which can be deduced from that decision cannot ..... exercise that discretion. now, this contention can no longer be put forward in view a recent decision of the supreme court reported in commissioner of income-tax v. mcmillan & co. 3. mr. palkhivala also wanted to argue that on the material before the appellate assistant commissioner he was not justified .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1958 (HC)

Chaturbhuj Chhogallal of Beawar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-22-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Raj193

jagat narayan, j. 1. these are connected applications under section 66(2) of the income-tax act (hereinafter called the act) by messrs. chaturbhuj chhogaial of beawar against the commissioner of income-tax and excess profits tax.2. the facts which have given rise to these applications are these. a hindu undivided family carried on business under the name chaturbhuj chhogaial at bcawar, the main ..... the books of the assessee they appeared as deposits in the names of kishanlal bikania and shrimati kasturibai respectively. the income-tax officer called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of these two items under section 23(3) of the act. apart from these two items, the assessee was also called upon to explain the nature of an account headed ..... radhakishan satyanarain. it may be mentioned that radha-kishan and satyanarain are the sons of jagannath. in his statement made before the income-tax officer on 8th february, 1947 in this connection, ..... any correspondence relating to the deposits which might have taken place with the depositors either prior to the deposits or subsequent to them. another circumstance, which appeared to the income-tax authorities to be suspicious, was that no transaction had ever taken place between the assessee and these alleged depositors prior to these deposits. no collateral document was executed in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1958 (HC)

Narandas Mathuradas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Sou ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-24-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom355; (1959)61BOMLR361; ILR1959Bom1391

..... was not considering the case of a trading loss. the privy council was considering a specific allowance claimed under the provisions of section 10(2) of the income -tax act, and even in deciding that the privy council felt difficulty, and the privy council points out that the payments they were considering were not made in the ..... says that in this case also by making the deposit the assessee is obtaining a business. but that is not correct. it is true that under the income-tax law even a single venture may be business, but this is not a case of a single venture. as we have pointed out before, it is in ..... . it is in order to put through that transaction that the deposit was necessary. 5. the second case referred to by mr. joshi is commr. of income tax, central and united provinces lucknow v. motiram nandram . in that case the assessees were carrying on business of cloth, yarn and moneylending and they wanted to ..... privy council, and as will be noticed, the facts in those two cases were entirely different. the first is tata hydro-electric agencies ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax . that is the well known case and it is in the context of the facts there that the privy council said at p. 209 (of itr):' ( ..... decide on which side of the line a particular case falls. but we have laid down a principle in lord's dairy farm ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax : air1955bom352 , which we think may be safely applied to the facts of this case, and this is what we say: 'as has been often pointed out .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1958 (HC)

Executors and Trustees of Cawasji Jehangir and ors. Vs. Commissioner o ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-30-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom404; (1959)61BOMLR373; ILR1959Bom1376

..... ,016/- for the purpose of determining the amount of income-tax and super-tax payable by the assessee share-holder on his total income and if so, whether that smaller portion of rs. 6,31,527/- is liable to be taxed at the rates applicable to 'capital gains' as laid down in section 17 (6) of the income-tax act, 1922.' we may state that the same question ..... , was as under: '23a. power to assess individual members of certain companies: (1) where the income-tax officer is satisfied that in respect of any previous year the profits and gains distributed as dividends by any company up to ..... the hands of the share-holders also at the rate appropriate to 'capital gains' as indicated in section 17 (6) of the act. the income-tax officer as well as the appellate assistant commissioner negatived that contention. the mater was carried in appeal by the assessees to the tribunal and the tribunal also dismissed that contention. ..... this total income shall be (i) income-tax and super-tax payable on his total income as reduced by the amount of such inclusion, had such reduced income been his total income....' clause (ii) has been altered. it relates to rates. section 23a as it stands today has also been recast. the material part of the section as it stood before its amendment by the finance act, 1955 .....

Tag this Judgment!

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