Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Year: 1958 Page 8 of about 475 results (0.114 seconds)

Dec 18 1958 (HC)

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

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-18-1958

Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR847

..... the affirnative whilst mr. justice tendolkar has answered the question in the negative. the decision of the court, having regard to the provisions of s. 66a of the indian income tax act, 1922 is that the question is answered in the affirnative.(22) the applicant to pay the costs. costs to include the costs of the hearing before mr. justice tendolkar ..... was not a unit of assessment under the indian income tax act of 1918. what the legislature intended to convey was any business, on the income profits and gains whereof tax was at any income profits and gains whereof tax was at any time charged under the indian income tax act of 1918. section 2(4) of the indian income tax act of 1922 lays down that unless there is anything ..... thereafter which would have to be shown under the head proftis and gains of business, profession or vocation covered by section 10 even under the indian income tax act of 1918, if an assessee derived from income, profits and gains from a business carried on by him, he was under an obligation to show the interest received by him from securities which constituted ..... contends that when the legislature used the words any business, profession or vocation on which tax was at any time charged under the provisions of the indian income tax act,. 1918 it refered only to tax on income under the head income derived from business falling under section 9 of the indian income tax act, 1918 and on income under the head profession earnings, falling under section10 of the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 1958 (HC)

Rogers and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-24-1958

Reported in : [1958]34ITR336(Bom)

..... not apply to the case of a sale of under section 10(2)(vii). it must apply to all cases of sale dealt with under the indian income-tax act, unless there is something in the section itself which makes it clear that the sale contemplated by the legislature is not only a sale where according to ..... the difference between rs. 4,85,354 and rs. 3,81,848 by reason of the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the income-tax act. 2. turning to section 10(2)(vii), it deals with depreciation; and the second proviso is in the following terms : 'provided further that ..... transfers it to himself, he cannot make profit either real or notional. these principles which we are enunciating were very clearly and emphatically enunciated in commissioner of income-tax v. sir homi mehta's executors. mr. joshi does not like these principles; but for good or for evil they are there till a higher court ..... the application of the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) 5. now, it is elementary that a person cannot sell to himself for the purpose of income-tax, because a person cannot make profit out of himself. the basic idea underlying section 10(2)(vii) is that the vendor has made profit by the ..... depreciation. now, the importance of this decision - if it has any - is that we considered whether a particular transaction constituted a sale for the purpose of taxing law and we drew a distinction between sale in a technical, legalistic sense and sale from a commercial point of view as representing a real transaction. if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 1958 (HC)

Chhotalal Devchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-24-1958

Reported in : [1958]34ITR351(Bom)

..... be administered technically, irrespective of the justice it may do. we realise that the income-tax act is a technical act and questions of equity cannot be incorporated in construing the provisions of the law. but even the income-tax act must be construed so that the court, as far as it can possibly do so ..... the assessee firm sought registration and it was denied registration by all the three authorities - the income-tax officer, the appellate assistant commissioner and the tribunal. it was in existence and registered under the indian income-tax act from 1945 and the registration which was refused was for the assessment year 1954-55. it ..... court to which we have also referred in the industrial stores co.'s case, and that is reported in haridas premji v. commissioner of income-tax bengal. in the calcutta case the partnership was constituted by letters and a multiplicity of document, and the full bench there went to ..... share of each partner in the registered firm. this question also came up for consideration before this court in the case of commissioner of income-tax v. shantilal vrajlal, and there we held that the mere fact that in the account books of the partnership the profits were not taken ..... obviously, in coming to this conclusion, the tribunal had in mind the decision of the supreme court reported in dulichand laxminarayan v. commissioner of income-tax the view taken by the supreme court on the facts of the case it was considering was that a partnership could not be registered under .....

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 23 1958 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Afco Private Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-23-1958

Reported in : [1959]35ITR177(Bom)

..... of one anna, except according to the department for one condition and that condition is that the company is a company to which the provisions of section 23a of the income-tax act cannot be made applicable. it is urged that in fact the provisions of section 23a are applicable and inasmuch as the provisions of section 23a are applicable the assessee company ..... year for the assessment for the year ending on the 31st day of march, 1956, and the company is a company to which the provision of section 23a of the income-tax act cannot be made applicable, a rebate shall be allowed at the rate of one anna per rupee on the amount of such excess.' 2. now, it is not disputed by ..... been complied with. 5. now, considerable light is thrown on this controversy by this legislative history. in the finance acts prior to 1955 the words used were : 'and no order has be made under sub-section (1) of section 23a of the income-tax act, a rebate shall be allowed at the rate of one anna per rupee on the amount of such excess ..... undistributed balance of the profits as provided in clause (i) of the proviso to item b of part i of the first schedule to the finance act, 1955. this rebate was disallowed both by the income-tax officer and the appellate assistant commissioner, but was allowed by the tribunal and the question has now come before us on this reference, and what calls .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1958 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Bai Navajbai N. Gamadia

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-09-1958

Reported in : [1959]35ITR793(Bom)

..... assessee.' 5. the commissioner was satisfied for the reasons aforesaid that the cases were fit for the issue of such notices and proceedings were initiated under section 34 of the income-tax act. the initiation of these proceedings was challenged by the assessee. in respect of the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55, the tribunal held that it was not the case ..... . the assessment year is 1952-53, the previous year being the financial year 1951-52. a re-assessment was made by initiating assessment proceedings under section 34 of the indian income-tax act. the assessee's appeal before the tribunal in connection with the re-assessment for the assessment year 1952-53 was heard along with the assessee's two other appeals being ..... income-tax (amendment) act, 1953, a proviso was added to section 18a(5) of the income-tax act with retrospective effect. the amending act was deemed to have come into force from 1st april, 1952. the question which the supreme court had there to decide ..... applicable to the facts of the present case. that is the case of m. k. vankatachalam v. bombay dyeing and . that was a case under section 35 of the indian income-tax act. the position in law would be no different in a case like the present arising under section 34(1)(b). in that case by section 13 of the indian .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 1958 (HC)

Nanubhai Maneklal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-25-1958

Reported in : [1959]36ITR301(Bom)

..... this references lies in an extremely narrow compass and relates to the meaning of the expression 'reserves,' an expression which has not been defined i the income-tax act. the expressions occurs in section 23a of the act and the controversy before us has centered round the meaning of the expression 'reserves' in the proviso to sub-section (1) of that section. the facts ..... the paid up capital of the company. the expression 'reserves', as we began by saying, has not been defined in the income-tax act and we have to interpret the expression on general principles and in the light of canons of construction applicable to taxing law. 5. now, our task is made considerably easy by a decision of the supreme court in commissioner of ..... taxing statute. that statute also does not define the expression 'reserves' and their lordship observed that regard must be had to the ordinary natural meaning as understood in ..... income-tax v. century spinning and ., where their lordship had to consider the identical expression, though not in the context of income-tax law but in the context of the business profits tax act of 1947 which also is a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1958 (HC)

New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. N.U. Raval, Incom ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-06-1958

Reported in : [1959]37ITR41(Bom)

..... for the year ending on the 31st day of march, 1951, and no order has been made under sub-section (1) of section 23a of the income tax act, a rebate shall be allowed at the rate of one anna per rupee on the amount of such excess.' 4. for the assessment year 1951-52 ( ..... of the same argument. it will be convenient to set out here section 28 of the finance act of 1956, whereby section 35(10) was introduced for the first time in the income-tax act : 'the amendments made in the income-tax act by section 4 and clause (b) of section 15 shall be deemed to have come into ..... or a writ of prohibition raises a rather important question of the construction of section 35(10) of the income-tax act. sub-section (10) of section 35 was introduced by amendment brought about by the finance act, 1956. we shall have occasion to refer to the amendment a little later in our judgment. the facts ..... company on which rebate had been allowed 'shall be deemed to have been made the subject of incorrect relief under this act.' in such a case the income-tax officer is authorised to recompute the tax payable by the company by reducing the rebate originally allowed as if the recomputation is a rectification of a mistake apparent ..... this argument does not really held the respondent's case because the order passed by the income-tax officer under section 18a (5) cannot be said to be final in the literal sense 35 of the act. what the income-tax officer has purported to do in the present case is not to revise his order in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 1958 (HC)

Chennuru Venkataramanaiah Chetty and Bros. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-12-1958

Reported in : [1959]37ITR533(AP)

..... in pursuance of the notice issued to the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1947-48 under notice issued under section 28 of the indian income-tax act (xi of 1922). the section 28 of the indian income-tax act on march 21, 1952, and the assessment in respect of those years was completed on the same date, i.e., on march 21, 1952. the ..... because of the orders of the appellate assistant commissioner cancelling the order of penalty. while observing so, the learned judge also stated that section 31(3) (b) of the indian income-tax act provided for appeal to the appellate tribunal against such an order and that no action was taken under sub-section (2) of section 33. under those circumstances, it was held ..... had deliberately failed to disclose it and this was on 23rd january, 1941. on the subsequent day, a notice under section 28(3) of the indian income-tax act was served on him to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. the contention that was raised was that the notice under sub-section (3) of section 28 ought ..... question raised in that case was whether the imposition of the penalty without notice being served under section 28(3) of the indian income-tax act was valid, and as notice was not served as required by law, it was held that the imposition of penalty by the commissioner was invalid. the question now under consideration .....

Tag this Judgment!


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