9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether certain sums of income are taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1922. 2. Whether the income received in 1925-26, which escaped assessment, falls under Section 34 of the Act. 3. Whether the expenditure on litigation between the assessee and his brother is allowable under Section 12(3) of the Act. 4. Whether the proceedings of the Income-tax Officer were legally sound. Analysis: Issue 1: The court determined that the interest received by the assessee, as a result of a decree for partition, qualifies as income taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1922. Despite arguments that the receipts were not related to business or employment, the court held that the interest was assessable as it was not of a casual or non-recurring nature. Therefore, the court answered the first question affirmatively. Issue 2: Regarding the income received in 1925-26, the court found that it had escaped assessment and fell within the purview of Section 34 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the court answered the second question in the affirmative. Issue 3: The court addressed the claim by the assessee for a reduction in assessment based on litigation expenses incurred during a suit with his brother. The court held that the assessee was not entitled to a reduction as the capital gained from the litigation was not considered in the assessment. Only the income derived from the capital obtained through the litigation was taken into account. Therefore, the third question was answered negatively. Issue 4: The final question pertained to the legality of the Income-tax Officer's proceedings. The court found no irregularity in the proceedings and rejected the plea to set them aside. Consequently, the fourth question was answered negatively. The court ordered the assessee to bear the costs of the case, including the fee of the Government Advocate and other related expenses.
|
