Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Year: 1958 Page 4 of about 475 results (0.090 seconds)

Mar 31 1958 (HC)

B.M. Desai Vs. V. Ramamurthy, I Income-tax Officer, A-iii Ward, Bombay ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-31-1958

Reported in : [1958]34ITR409(Bom)

..... 325 : 'for the purpose of assessment, there is a well marked distinction between discontinuance and succession - a distinction which is recognised in the english law of income-tax and adopted provided for in the indian income-tax act. the conception of succession therefore excludes the conception of discontinuance.' 4. apart from our decision turning on the clear language used by the legislature in section 44 ..... plain meaning of the section and to be in line with similar decisions upon the english income tax acts.' 3. there is also a judgment of the madras high court reported in karuppiah pillai v. commissioner of income-tax, madras also took the view that section 44 of the indian income-tax act only applies when there has been a discontinuance of a business, and that when a ..... of the profits of the four partners were allocated to each one of them under the provisions of the income-tax act and each of the partners was assessed to tax on his share of the profits. the petitioner and the other three partners paid the tax which they were liable to pay in respect of their respective assessment. iyer failed to do so and ..... chagla, c.j. 1. this petition raises a question as to the proper construction of section 44 of the income-tax act. the question comes to be raised under the following circumstances. the petitioner was a partners with there others in the firm of e. loeffler & co. which was constituted on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1958 (HC)

Simplex Mills Ltd. Vs. P.S. Subramanyam, Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-05-1958

Reported in : [1958]34ITR711(Bom)

..... , 1957, the first respondent passed an order of assessment on the petitioners for the assessment year 1952-53 under sections 22(3) and 34(1)(b) of the income-tax act assessing the petitioners' total income at the same figure at which it had been assessed in the original assessment order, viz., rs. 14,93,269. in the said assessment order the first respondent ..... . in the month of march, 1957, the petitioners were served with a notice, dated 18th march, 1957, under section 34 of the income-tax act by the first respondent, alleging that he had reason to believe that the petitioners' income assessable to income-tax for the assessment year 1952-53 had been the subject of excessive relief and stating that he proposed to re-assess the ..... (3) of the act for the said assessment year. the petitioners' total income for that year was determined to be rs. 14,93,269, and a sum of rs. 6,46 ..... . desai, j. 1. the petitioners are a limited company registered under the indian companies act, 1913. for the assessment year 1952-53 the petitioners made an advance payment of tax amounting to rs. 10,75,017-9-0 pursuant to the provisions of section 18a(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. on 30th august, 1952, the petitioners were regularly assessed under section 23 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1958 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Donald Miranda and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-11-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom33; (1958)60BOMLR910; ILR1958Bom1134; [1959]35ITR103(Bom)

..... in the first place, let us turn to the provisions of the excess profits tax act, and it is necessary to emphasize the scheme underlying that act. unlike the income-tax act, each assessment year under the excess profits tax act is not a self-contained unit of time. the tax under the excess profits tax act is paid on excess profits made over the standard profits. in one year the ..... repayment of the excess profits tax an income and treating that income and dealing with that income for the purpose of tax under the provisions of the indian income-tax act. it is pointed out that the legislature has expressly provided that this repayment should be deemed to be income for the purpose of the indian income-tax act and, therefore, you must turn to the indian income-tax act in order to determine ..... special rate, but all that the government did was that it treated the repayment as an income and allowed the income-tax act to deal with that income. we agree with mr. palkhivala that we have to compute this income in the manner laid down in the indian income-tax act. but there is no difficulty with regard to that, because there is always section 12 which deals ..... silica bricks co. ltd. v. marrian, the court was construing rule 4 of the rules applicable to cases i and ii of schedule d of the income tax act, 1918, and these cases dealt with business income, and what fell for interpretation was the second part of rule 4(1) which was : 'but where any person has received repayment of any amount previously .....

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 : [1959]35ITR461(Bom)

..... 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 were not made in the process of earning profits. they did not arise out of any ..... 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 his is not a case of a single venture. as we have pointed out before, it is in ..... business. it is in order to put through that transaction that the deposit was necessary. 7. the second case referred to by mr. joshi is commissioner of income-tax v. motiram nandram. in that case the assessees were carrying on business of cloth, yarn and money-lending and they wanted to start a new business and ..... 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. commissioners 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 page 209 : 'their lordships recognise ..... to decide on which side of the lone particular case falls. but we have laid down a principle in lord's dairy farm ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax, 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, the object .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1958 (HC)

Maharaj Shri Govindlalji Ranchhodlalji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-13-1958

Reported in : [1958]34ITR92(Bom)

..... for 1945-55 was rs. 17,591. the contention of the assessee was that these amounts were not subject to tax. the tribunal held that these amounts constituted an income and were liable to tax under section 10 or 12 of the indian income-tax act. 2. now, every receipt that a man receives is either a revenue receipt or a capital receipt, and in this ..... receipts come in with a fair regularity. but even if a receipt is a revenue receipt, it may not be subject to tax if the assessee establishes that the receipt is exempted from tax under one of the provisions of the income-tax act, and mr. thakkar, on behalf of the assessee, has strongly pressed upon us that these particular receipts are personal gifts made ..... our opinion, it is an untenable proposition that the amounts received by the assessee were income which was exempted under the provisions of the indian income-tax act. 7. now, mr. thakkar wanted to argue that even if these receipts constituted 'income', he was entitled to deductions permissible under the income-tax law. no question has been raised on this reference and we cannot go into it ..... practice of religion can become a vocation and more so, when it brings in a steady income. if the assessee does practise a vocation then the case falls under section 10; but even otherwise the income would fall in any case under section 12 of the income-tax act. 9. we answer the question submitted to us in the affirmative. 10. assessee to pay the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 1958 (HC)

Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-08-1958

Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR578; [1959]35ITR748(Bom)

..... of accrual was of relevance, it became immaterial because bhor state had become part of british india (taxable territory) for the purpose of application of the income-tax act as from 1st april, 1949. it is not necessary for us to deal with the first argument of mr. joshi. the second argument meets the ..... .' 17. we are not concerned here on this reference with section 12b or section 42. we have already mentioned that the operation of the income-tax act and the finance act, 1949, was retroactive from 1st april, 1949. now relying on section 14(2)(c) the argument urged on behalf of the assessee-shareholders ..... under section 60a in respect of the assessment year 1949-50, the effect of paragraph 12 read with section 60a and section 23a of the income-tax act is that it was the undistributed profit of a company for the year 1949-50 and subsequent years only to which the exemption can relate. ..... enactment itself to give it retroactive operation or it was required that it should have effect ex post facto. we have already mentioned that the income-tax act and the finance act were to be applied from 1st april, 1949, but that will have bearing on certain other questions. 10. the argument of mr. ..... resident in the taxable territories, have been exempt under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, if the act had not been passed. 5. (1) the income, profits and gains of any previous year ending after the 31st day of march, 1948, which is a previous year - ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1958 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad Vs. New Digvijaysinhji TIn Facto ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-04-1958

Reported in : [1959]37ITR136(Bom)

..... to the gifts executed on 2nd february, 1946, 15th april 1946, and 17th april, 1948, were all executed prior to the introduction of the income-tax act in saurashtra. the department did not carry the matter any further in respect of the assessment for that year. in respect of the subsequent assessment year ..... the assessment year 1952-53 which is the subject-matter of this reference that an objection was taken. no objection, however, was taken by the income-tax officer on the ground that the sums shown to the credit of the donees did not amount to 'capital borrowed for the purpose of the business ..... in the assessment year 1949-50, the deduction for interest paid was allowed to the assessee firm. in 1950-51 it was disallowed by the income-tax officer but on appeal to the appellate assistant commissioner, the assessee was successful and the interest paid on those amounts was allowed in the assessment ..... lilavati on her own behalf and on behalf of her children. he also held that the documents were all executed prior to the introduction of income-tax in saurashtra. the department accepted that position also for the subsequent year 1951-52. so that in the first year, the department did not ..... paid on the amount of these gifts and that was allowed by the department. in respect of the next assessment year 1950-51, the income-tax officer disallowed the amount of interest claimed as a deduction, but in appeal the appellate assistant commissioner allowed the deduction and the contention that was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1958 (HC)

Manordas Kalidas Vs. G.R. Desai and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-15-1958

Reported in : [1959]37ITR302(Bom)

..... the expression 'any case' in reference to the transfer thereof. that decision cannot be held to lay down that whenever the expression 'any case' or 'cases' appears under the income-tax act, it must of necessity be interpreted to mean 'pending case.' 10. the expression 'cases' within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 5 came up for consideration ..... 5 is wide enough to cover completed assessments. in support of the argument that the expression 'cases' covers completed assessments, strong reliance was placed on section 64 of the income-tax act and in particular sub-section (5) thereof. the provisions of section 64, in so far as they are material for the purpose of the present petition are as under ..... central), bombay. for the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54 the requisite notices under section 22(2) were issued by the income-tax officer, market ward, bombay. provisional assessments under section 23b of the income-tax act were made by the additional income-tax officer, section v (central), bombay, for those years. in respect of assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57 ..... (2) of section 5 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, assigned the case of petitioner to the commissioner of income-tax (central), bombay. on 22nd july, 1954, the commissioner of income-tax (central), bombay, in pursuance of sub-section (5) of section 5 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, assigned the case of the petitioner to the additional income-tax officer, section v (central), bombay and directed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1958 (HC)

S. Narayanappa and Brothers Vs. Income-tax Officer, Urban Circle, Bang ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-19-1958

Reported in : [1959]37ITR257(KAR); [1959]37ITR257(Karn)

..... is what rajamannar, c.j., said about it : 'it is impossible to accept the contention of mr. vidyasankar that the amount demanded as advance income-tax under section 18a of the income-tax act is not a tax. 'a tax in the general understanding of the term.... signifies as exaction for the support of the government' : vide united states v. butler. the primary meaning and object ..... the provisions of section 46(1) of the income-tax act. 7. mr. srinivasan has also contended that income-tax is the tax that is charged on the income of a person of the previous year and the advance tax being really a tax on the income of the year in which the advance tax is demanded, such advance tax cannot be regarded as income-tax. mr. srinivasan also contends that, in any ..... what is demanded under section 18a is admittedly a tax, no other tax being payable by an assessee under the provisions of the other than income-tax or super-tax, the tax so required to be paid in a notice of demand issued under section 29 of the act is, it is plain, income-tax act or super-tax. 25. indeed that that would be the correct view to take ..... event, the provisions of section 46(1) of the income-tax act are unconstitutional for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1958 (HC)

Esthuri Aswathaiah Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-21-1958

Reported in : [1959]37ITR518(KAR); [1959]37ITR518(Karn)

..... time, no doubt, no appeal was in fact filed against the order of assessment and, therefore, there was no question of the income-tax officer exercising his discretion under section 45 of the income-tax act. the said application was refused by the income-tax officer. it appears, however, that an appeal the inspecting assistant commissioner was requested to grant time till the disposal of the appeal ..... the relevant portions of sections 45 and 46 of the income-tax act. section 45 inter alia provides as follows : 'any amount specified as payable in a notice of demand under sub-section (3) of section 23-a or under section 29 ..... he did exercise his discretion, the same was exercised arbitrarily. on these grounds the learned advocate contended before us that no penalty could be imposed under section 46 of the income-tax act and the order imposing such penalty should be quashed. 3. before i deal with these contentions of the learned advocate for the petitioner, it would be necessary to set out ..... petition, which he had made to the commissioner of income-tax, to the income-tax officer. before any order was made by the commissioner of income-tax on the said application the income-tax officer on 11th june, 1956, levied the penalty under section 46 of the income-tax act upon the assessee. from these facts, it is clear that the income-tax office must have known and it is not disputed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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