Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1999]236ITR220(Bom)
..... is such a company as is referred to in section 108 of the income-tax act.' section 108 of the income-tax act, 1961, refers to two different categories of companies for the purpose of excluding such companies from the purview of section 104 of the income-tax act, 1961. section 108 of the income-tax act, 1961, reads as under : '108. nothing contained in section 104 shall ..... a 'domestic company' and the assessee was a company referred to in section 108 of the income-tax act, 1961. learned counsel submitted that if the assessee fell under section 108(b) of the income-tax act, 1961, for purposes of the income-tax act, it could not be held that it did not fall under the said section for the purposes ..... should be no order as to costs of this reference. s.n. variava j.63. this is a reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, whereby the income-tax tribunal had referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion : '1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1975]99ITR49(Mad)
..... is whether the assessee had sufficient distributable profits in the year in question for the purpose of application of section 23-a(1) of the income-tax act. it is well-established that for theapplication of section 23a(1), neither the book profits nor the assessedprofits can be taken to be conclusive, and that it ..... whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 23a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, were not attracted for the assessment year 1959-60?'5. it is common ground that the assessee is a section 23a-company.therefore, the only question ..... expenses relating to spare parts and maintenance should have been taken into account in determining the quantum of profits available for the purpose of section 23a of the indian income-tax act, 1922. in effect the case of the revenue was that the disallowed expenditure of rs. 56,350 was part of the commercial profits available with the assessee .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1965]58ITR24(Bom)
..... or deemed to be received or were brought by the assessees to the taxable territories in the previous year. from the 1st of april, 1950, the indian income-tax act became applicable to the part 'b' states, which from that day onwards became taxable territories. section 14(2)(c), therefore, ceased to have any application and ..... have been remitted. it accordingly rejected the said contention of the department and dismissed the department's appeal. an application under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, was made by the department requesting the tribunal to refer questions of law, which arose out of its order relating to both the contentions, which ..... . from the 1st of april, 1950, the income-tax act was made applicable to almost all these states. now, in several of these states, there was either no income-tax charged or the rate at which it was charged was much lower than the rate under the indian income-tax act. the income-tax act having been made applicable to all these areas, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1965]58ITR468(Bom)
..... , 1961, on which date the application for reference was actually filed. in our opinion, therefore, the application filed by the commissioner in the present case was not beyond time. 7. mr. kolah has argued that section 12 of the limitation act cannot be availed of in the present case because, in the first place, applications under section 66 of the indian income-tax act are ..... head is separately computed by the rules laid down for the computation of that particular class of income, the income which is the subject-matter of tax under the indian income-tax act is one income and the income-tax is also a single tax. the income-tax is only one tax levied on the sum total of the income classified and chargeable under the various heads. it is not a collection of distinct .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1967]65ITR50(Bom)
..... second question as it is framed requires us to state whether the compensation of rs. 2,34,000 and interest thereon was taxable under section 10(5a) of the indian income-tax act in the assessment year 1956-57. mr. joshi argues that even if it is held that the compensation amount is not taxable under section 10(5a) on the ground that ..... enforceable. a mere claim to a profit or to liability is not sufficient to make the profit to accrue or the liability to be incurred for the purposes of the income-tax act. 5. now, it is true that a mere claim to a profit, which, if upheld, would give rise to a profit may not be sufficient to make the profit as ..... 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the compensation of rs. 2,34,000 and interest thereon was taxable under section 10(5a) of the income-tax act in the assessment year 1956-57 ?' 4. on the point of law raised by the first question mr. joshi, learned counsel for the department, has argued that the compensation accrued .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR37; [1958]33ITR510(Bom)
..... the sum of rs. 2,72,080 was a receipt of dividend within the meaning of section 2(6a)(c) of the indian income-tax act ?' 2. now, in the first instance, one must start with the definition of 'dividend' for this purpose which is to ..... was on done.'4. it is to get over the law as laid down in this case that the indian income-tax act was amended by subjecting to tax any distribution made to the shareholders of a company out of accumulated profits on the liquidation of the company. 5 ..... question regarding the taxation of 'dividend' as defined in section 2, sub-section (6a), clause (c), of the income-tax act. the assessee was a shareholder of a private limited company known as desai arvade ltd. the said company were the ..... particular definition, the historical background must be kept in mind. this sub-section was inserted by section 2 of the indian income-tax (amendment) act, 1939. prior to that date, the position which was established in law was that any distribution by a liquidator, whether out .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Bom)5; [1986]162ITR452(Bom); [1986]27TAXMAN7(Bom)
..... no letting of the installation, the requirements of section 56(2)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961, were not met. accordingly, the income derived by the assessee form the leases cannot be taxed under the head 'income from other sources'. it must be taxed as income from property.12. great reliance was placed by mrs. jagtiani upon the aforesaid decision ..... and gains of business or profession'.'6. it was contended on behalf of the revenue by mr. dhanuka that section 56(2)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961, contemplated both the letting of a building and the letting of a plant. in the instant case there was no letting of the installation. section ..... -conditioning installation. the provisions of section 56(2)(ii) of the income-tax act, 1961, do not, therefore, apply, accordingly, the income derived by the assessee from the premises under the leases cannot be taxed under the head 'income from other sources' but must be taxed as income from property. the question is so answered.18. there shall be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1964]51ITR460(Bom)
..... 000. the company has distributed a dividend of rs. 29,000. even on this footing, with respect, it is not possible to sustain the order section 23a of the income-tax act. 10. for the reasons stated above, in the result we answer the question referred to us in the negative. 11. the department shall pay the costs of the ..... 29,000. in these circumstances, in our opinion, the tribunal was not justified in holding that this was a case in which an order under section 23a of the income-tax act should be made. 9. it has been argued on behalf of the revenue that the commercial profits ascertained are not rs. 61,483 but rs. 61,483 plus ..... 29,100, being less than 60 per cent. of the balance, action under section 23a of the income-tax act was taken by the income-tax officer against the assessee. the order of the income-tax officer was affirmed in appeal by the appellate assistant commissioner of income-tax as well as by the appellate tribunal. 4. the contention raised by the assessee was that having .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1971]81ITR52(Bom)
..... , 'that if for any reason it was ultimately held that a separate assessment should be held, it would be possible to take action under section 34 of the income-tax act'. in ghanta bapaniah's case, the as assesses were all coparceners of a hindu undivided family. in the course of the assessment of the karta of the family ..... it was held that these members were not strangers to the assessment proceedings in which a direction was given and, therefore, the proviso to section 34(3) of the income-tax act was attracted. in muthukaruppan's case, while holding the hindu undivided family as the assessee the file of the individual member was clubbed with the file of the father ..... by the supreme court as well as the different high courts. the question regarding the validity of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34 of the income-tax act arose before the supreme court in the two cases which were heard together and decided on the same day. they are : s. c. prashar v. vasantsen dwarkadas and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1972]83ITR136(Bom)
..... and/or the language which arose for construction and application to the fact before the division bench were the same as in sub-section (1) of section 41 of the income-tax act. though there were complicated provisions regarding the interests of the ultimate beneficiary in the deed of trust and though in fact it was found that the beneficiary tribhuvandas, had only ..... in favour of rajendrakumar. these assessments were challenged and ultimately in the matter of all the three trusts, the income-tax appellate tribunal by its separate orders dated january 2, 1961, held that these beneficiaries where under the deeds of trust entitled to the income only and not to the surplus (capital gains) resulting from the sale of the trust assets. they were not .....
Tag this Judgment!