Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-01-1968
Reported in : 72ITR194(SC)
..... out of the order of the tribunal. as we have already stated, before the tribunal at the hearing of the appeal under section 33 of the income-tax act, only two question were argued : (1) that the explanation of the assessee about the genuineness of the entry in the name of banshidhar should ..... of the assessee in handloom clothe and silk fabrics. 3. an application filed by the assessee under section 66(1) of the income-tax act to submit a statement of case to the high court of allahabad was rejected. but the high court directed the tribunal to submit a ..... as unreliable. this was so decided in kale khan mohammad hanif v. commissioner of income-tax, . whether is a given case the income-tax officer may tax the cash credit entered in ..... 6. there is nothing in law which prevents the income-tax officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily explained, and the business income estimated by him under section 13 of the income-tax act, after rejecting the books of account of the assessee ..... an entry dated january 15, 1945, of a deposit of rs. 20,000 in the name of messrs. banshidhar rawatmal of ratangarh. the income-tax officer called upon the assessee to prove the nature and source of this deposit and, after considering the evidence produced by the assessee, rejected the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-06-1968
Reported in : AIR1969SC840; 73ITR652(SC); 2SCR7
..... association may convert its accumulate profit into capital and then utilise such profit by issuing additional shares by was of bonus of the shareholders. under the income-tax act, 1922, at the relevant time, issue of such of bonus shares by capitalisation of the accumulate profit was not treated as distribution of dividend. 5 ..... conclusion of the tribunal is supported by the evidence cannot be made. 12. in india cements ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax this court observed that in a reference under the income-tax act the high court must accept the findings of fact made by the appellate tribunal, and it is for the person who ..... his hands.' 7. the principle of the case was affirmed by the judicial committee in a case arising under the indian income-tax act, 1922, commissioner of income-tax v. mercantile bank of india. accordingly, bonus shares given by a company in proportion to the holding of equity capital by ..... even in the supplementary statement on attempt has been made to set out the facts on which the conclusion was based. the orders of the income-tax officer and there appellate assistant commissioner are also not before us. the mere circumstance that in the copies of the balance-sheets rendered by the ..... at different times bonus hares proportionate to their equity holding. from time to time the assessees sold the bonus shares received by them. the income-tax officer brought to tax rs. 55,607 in the assessment year 1946-47; rs. 41,625 in the assessment year 1948-49; rs. 1,43,050 in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-30-1968
Reported in : AIR1969SC501; 72ITR291(SC); 1SCR904
..... was credited in the accounts of the assessee during the accounting period of the assessment year 1943-44 could be subjected to tax under section 16, sub-clause (2), of the income-tax act. although an order under section 23a of the indian income-tax act had already been made on 12th december, 1941, for the assessment year 1939-40 in the case of the atherton west ..... rejecting the contention of the appellant that the amount was not liable to be taxed in that year. the income-tax appellate tribunal agreed with the order of the income-tax officer. 3. the following question under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, was referred to the high court of allahabad for opinion : ' whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case ..... have been paid, credited or distributed to him, . . .' 9. section 4(1)(b) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, in so far as it is material, provides : '(1) subject to the provisions of this act, the total income of any previous year of any person includes all income, profits and gains from whatever source derived which . . . (b) if such person is resident in the taxable ..... the company of its previous year as reduced by the amount of income-tax and super-tax payable by the company in respect thereof. the income-tax officer, by order dated november 18, 1940, ordered in exercise of the power under section 23a of the indian income-tax act, as then in force, that an amount of rs. 3,32,691 shall be deemed to be distributed amongst .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-08-1968
Reported in : ILR1969Delhi240; 73ITR765(Delhi)
..... on his behalf but on behalf of the partners in the subpartnership.' their lordships also dealt with the effect of section 23(5)(a) of the income-tax act, 1922, but since no arguments were addressed to us on this aspect, i need nto deal with the same. this decision, in my opinion, ..... charge upon the the assessed's income. in seth mtoi lal manekchand v. commissioner of income-tax, bombay north, (2) hindu joint family was partitioned and ..... .'whether, in any case, the aforesaid sum of rs. 55,664.00 could be claimed as permissible deduction under section 10 of the indian income-tax act, 1922 ?' and in that of messrs h. g. gupta and sons are- 3.'whether the amount of rs. 55,664.00 has ..... part of his income in a particular way, it is rather the allocation of a sum out of this revenue before it becomes income in his hands.' their lordships of the judicial committee, interpreted the indian income-tax act, to mean that it intended to tax only the real income of a tax payer and nto to tax what is a ..... does this create an over-riding title in favor of the assessed firm the first case on the subject is raja bejoy singh dudhuria v. commissioner of income-tax, bengal. in that case raja bejoy singh dhudhuria succeeded to certain ancestral estate on the death of his father. his stepmtoher filed a suit for maintenance .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-18-1968
Reported in : 72ITR757(Ker)
..... tribunal, madras bench, under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax, act, 1922, as directed by this court on the application of the assessee. the question referred is :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of rs. 60,813 or any portion thereof as the income of the assessee-family from undisclosed sources during the previous year ..... discarded it in relation to a sum of rs. 30,000.'11. we shall now examine the decision in govindarajulu mudaliar v. commissioner of income-tax. in that case, the income-tax officer found that the income of the assessee, chargeable to tax, was rs. 54,600 for the assessment year 1945-46, rs. 27,500 for the year 1946-47 and rs. 54,500 for ..... the high denomination bank notes (demonetisation) ordinance, 1946, promulgated on 12th january, 1946. for the assessment year 1947-48, for which the accounting year was the calendar year 1946, the income-tax officer called upon the assessee to explain the possession of these 61 high denomination notes. the assessee submitted that they were received by him in the course of his business ..... that the said amount came from past remittances from ceylon out of the earnings of the family and from savings from agricultural property. the above explanation was rejected by the income-tax officer; and his finding was affirmed both by the appellate assistant commissioner and the appellate tribunal. the appellate assistant commissioner, however, held that the sum of rs. 3,000 invested .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-05-1968
Reported in : 74ITR254(Guj)
..... wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business and as such allowable as a deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the income-tax act, 1922, corresponding to section 37 of the present act. the assessee thereupon made an application to the tribunal for raising an additional ground of appeal challenging the disallowance of the third claim and this application ..... bhagwati, c.j.1. this references raises a rather important question affecting the jurisdiction of the tribunal under the provisions of the income-tax act, 1961. the reference arises out of an assessment made on the assessee for the assessment year 1964-65. the assessees is a private limited company and in the course ..... the explanation, the interpretation consistently placed by the high courts on the corresponding provisions of the old act was - vide narrondas manordass v. commissioner of income-tax, and this interpretation was confirmed by the supreme court in commissioner of income-tax v. mcmillan and co., and commissioner of income-tax v. shapoorji pallonji mistry 3 - that once an appeal is preferred by an assessee, the powers ..... does not say anything which helps in the determination of the present question. certain cash credits were added as undisclosed profits in the assessment of the assessee by the income-tax officer and the assessee challenged the addition before the appellate assistant commissioner without success. the assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal to the tribunal but the tribunal did .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-22-1968
Reported in : AIR1970Guj167; 73ITR490(Guj)
..... income of the assessee for all the three assessment years. the asessee being aggrieved by the orders of the ..... income-tax officer, preferred appeals to the appellate assistant commissioner. the appellate assistant commissioner disagreed with the view taken by the income-tax officer and held that the ..... under the trust deeds and the entire income of the relevant account years was therefore receivable by the trustees on behalf of or for the benefit of the assessee and the assessee was liable to be assessed directly in respect of such income under section 166 of the income-tax act, 1961. the income- tax officer accordingly included the entire income of the three trusts in the total .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-13-1968
Reported in : 73ITR382(Mad)
..... agreement to share such profits as between the partners of the ' j ' firm is an internal arrangement, which could not be pressed for relief under the provisions of the indian income-tax act. according to him, the assessee earned the profits by reason of his accepted status as partner in the ' b ' firm and any collateral, anterior or posterior arrangement to divide the ..... , depends upon the true scope of the word ' income ' which is exigible to tax. it is not every income of an assessee but the real income earned by him in the commercial and normal sense, which enters into the magnitude of its monetary value. when section 10(1) of the indian income-tax act of 1922 prescribes that tax shall be paid by an assessee in respect of ..... the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him, it cannot be said that the word ' income ' has been deployed in the abstract and all notional income earned would also come within its mischief. thus, interpreting ..... under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, on an application by the department, arises out of an order of the tribunal which accepted the contention of the assessee, that, the share of profits received by him as partner of the firm, erode bleaching and finishing company, was not his real income, but was income which he was bound to share with .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-12-1968
Reported in : 72ITR356(Mad)
..... it appears, he also owned rubber gardens in that foreign territory. the point in the reference turns on the proper application of section 49d of the income-tax act to the facts in each of the years. three questions have been formulated for the first year and two common questions for the next two years. ..... for determining total world income for the purpose of the indian income-tax act, the sum of rs. 39,142 comes into the ..... said to have suffered foreign income-tax besides the indian income-tax. that being the case, we fail to see how, by a mere jugglery of figures and the computation thereof, double income-tax relief be granted in respect of this sum which has suffered but one tax under the provisions of the indian income-tax act. it has been argued that ..... computation. that is perfectly true. but it does not follow from it that merely because it comes into the computation, it has also suffered double tax.6. ..... veeraswami, j.1. this common reference under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act relates to the assessment years 1953-54 to 1955-56. the assessee, one kv. al. m. ramanathan chettiar, who is now dead .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-11-1968
Reported in : 72ITR534(Mad)
..... the assessee's business of money-lending. at the instance of the assessee the following question has been referred to us under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the allowance of rs. 5,321 under ..... section 10(2)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1922 ?'2. the contention of the assessee before us is two-fold: (1) that the expenditure by way of payment of interest on money borrowed ..... slightly different manner, namely, that the amount was invested in an asset which did not yield any income which could be taxed under the income-tax act. apparently, what he had in mind was that the share of income as and when due to the assessee from the firm was agricultural in character. whatever that be, ..... allowable deduction from the profits of another business, though both the businesses are carried on by the same assessee. milapchand r. shah v. commissioner of income-tax, : 58itr525(mad) was a case in which a money-lending firm borrowed moneys on interest and made advances out of the borrowed moneys to ..... cloth shop. we do not think that the provision of section 10(2) intends or comprehends such an application. l. m. chhabda v. commissioner of income-tax, : 65itr638(sc) to which our attention has been drawn, does not also bear on the precise question before us. this case is authority only .....Tag this Judgment!