Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1952 Page 3 of about 45 results (0.138 seconds)

Aug 25 1952 (HC)

Chiranjilal Multani Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-25-1952

Reported in : AIR1953P& H215; [1952]22ITR514(P& H)

..... work done by them in their bhatinda mill. at the material time bhatinda was not a part of british india and the assessee partnership could be made liable to indian income-tax only on the basis that the amount was received in british india, for there is no suggestion that the amount accrued ..... accepted, so far as it goes as stating correctly the nature of the dealings of the bank with the assessee.4. under section 50, negotiable instruments act, the endorsement of a negotiable instrument followed by delivery transfers to the endorsee the property therein with the right of further negotiation. the section provides, however, ..... that the payments must be deemed to have been made at delhi. their reasons seem to be that the patiala state bank could be taken as acting as an agent on behalf of the assessee; the circumstance that the patiala state bank placed a transaction in the category of demand drafts could ..... branch of the patiala state bank there, that all property in the cheques thereupon was transferred to the patiala state bank under section 50, negotiable instruments act, and the payments subsequently made at delhi to the patiala bank were not payments to the assessee; the receipt of the money by the assessee was ..... :'upon the facts found and in view of the certificate from the patiala state bank, was the tribunal correct in concluding that the patiala state bank acted merely as a collecting agent for the assessee and that the purchase in d.d. of cheques of the value of rs. 1,40,785/- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1952 (HC)

Brij Mohan Rameshwar Dass Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-26-1952

Reported in : [1953]23ITR31(P& H)

..... 1) of the indian income-tax act by the income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi bench.the matter concerns the assessment year 1944-45 of the partnership messrs. brij mohan-rameshwar dass who were doing cloth business at delhi. notices under sections 22(2) and 22(4) of the income-tax act had been served ..... should be more clearly in these terms :-'whether in an order of remand made by an appellate assistant commissioner under section 31(2) of the act it is open to the appellate assistant commissioner t direct or permit the income-tax officer to take into consideration account books of the assessee ..... the appellate assistant commissioner. in the appeal against the penalty order the quantum of penalty was reduced. the appeal relating to section 27 of the act was dismissed. the present reference arises from the appeal which arises under section 23(4), and the appellate tribunal has reduced the assessment from rs. ..... matter required to be looked into further and he made an order of remand, which he was entitled to do under section 31(2) of the act, directing the income-tax officer to re-compute the income on the basis of further inquiry and he added the words 'as well as the ..... assessment itself. the appellate assistant commissioner dismissed the appeal against the penalty and also the appeal against the order made under section 27 of the act. in respect of the appeal against the assessment itself the appellate assistant commissioner seemed to think that there was no material on the record which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 1952 (HC)

Narbadabai and ors. Vs. Natverlal Chunilal Bhalakia and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-12-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Bom386; (1953)55BOMLR408; ILR1953Bom851

..... a proprietary arm but that it was a partnership firm. that was also the contention of the defendants, and with very great respect to the learned judge below, it seems difficult to understand ..... referred to as the said agreement dated 7-2-1948,' it is rather curious that the plaintiff in his evidence admitted that there was a partnership between him and the other two branches in the firm of natverlal chunilal, and his case was not that the firm of natverial chunilal was ..... december 1947 and january 1943 between the members of the branches of the three brothers, 'inter alia', regarding the estate of purshottamdas jhaverchand and certain partnership business carried on in the name of popatlal mulchand in bombay and also the business carried on by the plaintiff in the name of natverlal chunilal ..... natverlal chunilal from its inception in 1997. 3. the learned judge held that the writing of 21-2-1943, did not bring about a partnership between the three branches represented by the three sons of purshcttamdas but that the defendants were co-sharers with the plaintiff in the profits of natverlal ..... and these disputes were referred to arbitration on 28-12-1947. the reference to arbitration expressly stated that the award would be governed by the indian arbitration act. under this agreement four arbitrators were appointed. on 7-2-1943, the arbitrators gave their award and really the award was in two parts. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1952 (HC)

M. Nagendriah Vs. M. Ramachandriah and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-05-1952

Reported in : AIR1953Kant108; AIR1953Mys108

..... that the denial of that allegation by the defendant does not take the suit out of the scope of section 11(b) (which is the same as article 17, indian court-fees act) is in favour of the appellant's contention. as also the case in -- 'vishnuprasad narandas v. narandas mohan-lal', : air1950bom4 (b) where it has been held that a suit ..... lah 123 (fb)' (g), that the court-fee payable on a memorandum of appeal in a suit for partition which falls under article 17(vi) of schedule ii, court-fees act would be the same as that leviable on a plaint and is not to be assessed on the basis of the value of the subject-matter in appeal.6. in ..... was in exclusive possession of those items. the plaintiff paid a fixed court-fee of rs. 50/- on the plaint under article 11(b) of schedule ii, mysore court-fees act. this was at that stage proper and sufficient and the case reported in -- '44 mys hcr 203' (a) where it has been held that where a co-owner, co-sharer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 1952 (HC)

Debi Prasad Malviya Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, United Provinces, Luckno ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-29-1952

Reported in : AIR1953All227; [1952]22ITR539(All)

..... march 1944, which had been set aside by the appellate assistant commissioner, that the income-tax officer knew that the assessee had a one-third share in the partnership firm, kanpur iron supply co., and that the profits of that concern had to be added to the total income of the assessee. in the assessment order ..... the said decision. in the years in question, i.e., assessment years 1942-43 and 1943-44, the assessee did not again include the profits of this partnership business in the return filed by him. on 25th march 1944, the income-tax officer made the assessment for the year 1942-43. the assessment, however, was ..... the income-tax appellate tribunal and the statement of the case are that the assessee was being assessed as a hindu undivided family. on 2nd december 1938, a partnership firm known as kanpur iron steel co., was started of which one brij bhoosan lal, a nephew of the assessee, was a partner. the share of ..... learned counsel for the assessee has urged that as brij bhooshan lal was the registered partner of the firm and the firm had been registered under the indian income-tax act, it was not open to the department to treat the assessee as the partner in the kanpur iron supply company. according to the assessee this raises ..... as part of the income of the hindu undivided family and claimed that the hindu undivided family had a one-third share in the partnership firm. in the assessment for the next year, 1941-42, the assessee had not included in his return the income of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1952 (HC)

Mote Shah and Co. Karad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-27-1952

Reported in : AIR1952Bom447; (1952)54BOMLR570

..... . while the appeal was pending before him the assesses applied for permission to make an application to the income-tax officer under section 26(a) for registration of the partnership. no order was made by the appellate assistant commissioner on this application and the appellate assistant commissioner passed his final order reducing the assessment made by the income-tax officer ..... to take the view that an appellate assistant commissioner exercising judicial functions cannot be judicially corrected by a higher judicial tribunal when obviously and unjustifiably he acts contrary to the rules framed under the indian income-tax act. the question framed by the tribunal does not really bring out the real point of law which we have to decide in this reference. ..... rule 2 (c) the appellate assistant commissioner deprived the assessee of an opportunity of obtaining the status of a registered partnership. if the permission had been granted and the order bad been made by the income-tax officer registering the partnership, the status of the assessee would have been changed and the assessment would have bean different. therefore, the grievance that ..... rightly assessed the assessee as an unregistered firm, as the firm had not been registered under section 26(a), income-tax act.when the assessee went to the appellate assistant commissioner, he made an application under rule 2 (c), indian income-tax rules and that rule provides that an application under section 26(a) shall be made with the permission of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1952 (HC)

Bijadhar Ram Dwarka Ram Ballia, in Re.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-19-1952

Reported in : [1953]23ITR343(All)

..... the members thereof and from the 3rd of april the business was carried on by them as partners. this partnership was registered under section 26a of the indian income-tax act and was thereafter assessed as a partnership firm. the firm, however, claimed that the deficiency made in the profits in certain years previous to the 3rd ..... allowed to be adjusted against the profits made after the 3rd of april, 1943, when the business was being carried on by the partnership. the excess profits tax officer disallowed this contention and held that, in view of the provisions of section 8(i) of the excess profits tax ..... previously carried on and owned by a hindu undivided family is on partial partition of the family carried on and owned by a partnership composed of the members of the quondam family in contractual relationship ?'the ..... act, since the 3rd of april, 1943, it was a new business. this decision was upheld by the tribunal and on an application made ..... under section 66(i) of the indian income-tax act by which the appellate tribunal has referred to us the following question for our decision :- 'whether there is any change in the person carrying on the business within the meaning of section 8(i) of the excess profits tax act, 1940, when the business which was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1952 (HC)

Mote Shah and Co., Karad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-27-1952

Reported in : [1952]22ITR39(Bom)

..... commissioner. while the appeal was pending before him, the assessee applied for permission to make an application to the income-tax officer under section 26a for registration of the partnership. no order was made by the appellate assistant commissioner on this application and the appellate assistant commissioner passed his final order reducing the assessment made by the income-tax officer ..... take the view that an appellate assistant commissioner exercising judicial functions cannot be judicially corrected by a higher judicial tribunal when obviously and unjustifiably he acts contrary to the rules framed under the indian income-tax act. the question framed by the tribunal does not really bring out the real point of law which we have to decide in this reference. ..... under rule 2(c) the appellate assistant commissioner deprived the assessee of an opportunity of obtaining the status of registered partnership. if the permission had been granted and the order had been made by the income-tax officer registering the partnership, the status of the assessee would have been different. therefore the grievance that the assessee can make before the ..... assessed the assessee as an unregistered firm as the had not been registered under section 26a of the income-tax act. when the assessee went to the appellate assistant commissioner, he made an application under rule 2(c) of the indian income-tax rules and that rule provides that an application under section 26a shall be made with the permission .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 1952 (HC)

Hari Kailash and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., C.P. and Be ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-10-1952

Reported in : AIR1953All170; [1952]22ITR195(All)

..... 'bush, beach's case' was not really relevant. their lordships of the judicial committee had pointed out in -- 'shaw wallace's case' that 'the indian act is not in 'pari materia'; it is less elaborate in many ways, subject to fewer refinements, and in arrangement and language it differs greatly from the provisions ..... received as compensation for the earlier termination of the contract, the contract being directed to regulate the conditions under which the assessee-firm was to carry on this partnership business, the decision in -- 'commr. of income-tax, ' bengal v. shaw, wallace & co.', 6 itc 178: 1932 all lj 588 (pc), ..... not necessary for us to set out those terms. in short, the assessee-firm and messrs e. sefton and company, ltd., entered into a partnership to carry on business on certain terms and to share profits and losses, the assessee-firm further undertaking to finance the concern on certain terms mentioned ..... may be treated as income but the amount paid for terminating a business cannot, ordinarily, be deemed to be income from, that business taxable under the indian income-tax act. 6. reliance is also placed on the decision in --'kelsall parsons & co. v. commissioner of inland revenue', (1938) 21 tax cas 608 ..... would apply and no part of the amount would be 'income' within the meaning of that term in the indian income-tax act. in the statement of the case, however, the tribunal has apparently made a mistake as the assessee firm had admitted that the sum of rs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1952 (SC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. K. Srinivasan and K. Gopalan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-22-1952

Reported in : AIR1953SC113; [1953]32ITR87(SC); (1953)IMLJ436(SC); [1953]4SCR486

..... in a reference made by the income-tax appellate tribunal under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. 2. for several years prior to 1939-40 the respondents, who are brothers, had been carrying of in partnership the business of 'the hindu,' a daily newspaper of madras. the profits of this ..... or vocation on which tax was at any time charges under the provisions of the indian income-tax act, 1918, is succeeded in such capacity by another person, the change not being merely a change in the constitution of a partnership, no tax shall be payable by the first mentioned person in respect of the ..... or gains of the previous year. (3) where any business, profession or vocation on which tax was at any time charges under the provisions of the indian income-tax act, 1918 (vii of 1918), is discontinued, then, unless there has been a succession by virtue of which the provisions of sub-section (4) have ..... was right in holding that the period the profits of which were entitled to exemption from the payment of tax under section 25(4) of the indian income-tax act, 1939, was the period commencing from 1st july, 1938, and ending with 29th february, 1940.' 4.the reference was heard by satyanarayana rao and ..... business had been charged to income-tax in the hands of the respondents under the indian income-tax act of 1918. the firm's year of account was a .....

Tag this Judgment!


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