Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1965 1965 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 61 to 68 of 68 Records

• 1965 (10) TMI 8
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether L. Debi Parshad was a stranger in respect of the income-tax proceedings against Ambala Flour Mills?
  2. Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could direct the income to be assessed in the hands of L. Debi Parshad after annulling the assessment in the case of Ambala Flour Mills?
  3. Whether the appeals filed by Shri Debi Parshad were maintainable in law?
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The High Court analyzed the partnership dissolution involving Ambala Flour Mills and the subsequent business operations by Debi Parshad. Despite the dissolution, Debi Parshad continued the business alone after other partners exited. The Income-tax Officer assessed the income as that of an association of persons due to differing judgments. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner annulled the assessment, holding the income solely belonged to Debi Parshad's family. The Court found Debi Parshad integral to the proceedings and business, thus not a stranger. The appeals filed by Debi Parshad were deemed maintainable.
  
  Issue 2:
  Regarding the direction by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to assess the income in the hands of Debi Parshad, the Court referred to a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has the power to direct individual assessments even if the original assessment was on an association of persons. The Court upheld this principle, stating that the direction should be to assess Debi Parshad individually, not his family. Therefore, the Court answered the second question in the affirmative with a qualification regarding the assessment.
  
  Issue 3:
  The Court addressed the maintainability of appeals filed by Debi Parshad. Given his involvement in filing returns and conducting proceedings, the Court found the appeals maintainable. The Court highlighted the business history and Debi Parshad's role, concluding that he was not a stranger to the proceedings. Therefore, the third question was answered in the affirmative.
  
  The judgment concluded by stating that the parties would bear their own costs. The Chief Justice agreed with the judgment, affirming its validity.

  ---

• 1965 (10) TMI 7
  

  Sale of land in separate plots - surplus from sale of the land did not result from any trade or business in land carried on by the assessee or from any transaction which may properly be described as an adventure in the nature of trade - not incldible as "profits or gains of business"

  ---

• 1965 (10) TMI 6
  

  Challenge to a protective assessment with a prayer that it should be set aside - held that it ought to be raised before the taxing authorities and cannot appropriately be allowed to be urged before the High Court in a petition under art. 226 - petition accordingly also fails and is dismissed

  ---

• 1965 (10) TMI 5
  
  Issues:
  Character of receipt as revenue or capital
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to the consolidation of two assessees' cases regarding the receipt of a sum of Rs. 19,673 representing the gain over the cost of a leasehold interest in Thombai Estate in Malaya acquired by the Government. The main issue revolves around whether this sum constitutes a revenue receipt assessable to income tax. The assessees' father initially contributed one-third to the leasehold interest acquired by Chidambaram Chettiar and his brother from a church in Malaya. The estate yielded income until enemy occupation between 1942 and 1945 significantly reduced the returns. The estate was jointly managed until a partition in 1950, after which the assessees were debited with the cost of their share in the estate. The Government of Malaya later acquired the estate, leading to the compensation received by the assessees, which was brought to tax by the revenue.
  
  The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Tribunal considered the asset as part of the stock-in-trade of the firm, rejecting the assessees' claim that it was a capital investment. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no evidence to support the asset being held as an investment and that the returns from the estate did not align with it being a source of investment. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's approach, stating that the character of the asset should be determined based on the facts and circumstances surrounding it. The Court highlighted that the nature of the estate, being a leasehold interest in a rubber estate, typically signifies an investment rather than a trading asset.
  
  The Court further analyzed the treatment of the asset in the firm's accounts post-partition in 1950 and emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the revenue's conclusion that the asset was part of the stock-in-trade. The Court also dismissed the significance of the book entries transferring the asset to the assessees, as the revenue and Tribunal did not consider them as factual transfers. Additionally, the Court noted that the assessments were made in the status of individuals, but the character of the asset was incorrectly assessed based on its treatment as a stock-in-trade of the firm.
  
  Regarding the contention that the assessees had prior knowledge of the Government's acquisition of the asset, the Court ruled that the transaction did not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade. The absence of commercial intent or risk-taking behavior on the part of the original purchasers indicated that the transaction was not a trade venture. Ultimately, the Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, highlighting the insufficiency of material to support the revenue's characterization of the asset as stock-in-trade and the income as a revenue receipt assessable to tax.

  ---

• 1965 (10) TMI 4
  
  The High Court of Madras ruled that properties obtained as capital at partition were not treated as stock-in-trade of the money-lending business. The court found that the properties were dealt with separately and not purchased, leading to the decision in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal's inclusion of the profit from the properties in the chargeable income was overturned.

  ---

• 1965 (10) TMI 3
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of section 137(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Application of section 137(5) in relation to court orders.
  3. Comparison with precedents - Income-tax Officer, Central Circle I, Madras v. Ramaratnam and Ramakrishna Mudaliar v. Rajabu Fathima Bukari.
  4. Relevance of section 137(3)(xxi) in the present case.
  5. Impact of the Finance Act, 1964, on the application of section 137.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the High Court of Madras dealt with the interpretation of section 137(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in a case where the defendants, who were the petitioners, disputed the execution of a promissory note by their father and the consideration behind it. The court below had dismissed their application based on section 137(1) of the Act. The petitioners argued that section 137(5) should apply as one of the statements made to the Income-tax Officer was by the defendant's father himself. However, the court held that sub-section (5) does not lift the prohibition imposed by sub-section (1) on the court or any public servant. It clarified that the liberty given to the maker of the statement under sub-section (5) does not extend to the court or public servant.
  
  The judgment referenced the case of Income-tax Officer, Central Circle I, Madras v. Ramaratnam, where it was held that if the assessee waived the privilege, the prohibition under section 137 would not operate. However, the court reiterated that sub-section (1) is not subject to sub-section (5), and the prohibition against the court or public servant is absolute. Another case, Ramakrishna Mudaliar v. Rajabu Fathima Bukari, was cited to support the view that the evidence of the Income-tax Officer is inadmissible under section 137(5), emphasizing that the prohibition against the officer himself remains intact.
  
  The petitioners also argued for the application of section 137(3)(xxi), but the court found it inapplicable as the statements in question did not fall within the scope of that provision. Lastly, the petitioners contended that since section 137 was removed by the Finance Act, 1964, their application should be allowed. However, the court emphasized that it was bound by the law in force at the time of the application's disposal and dismissed the petition without costs.

  ---

• 1965 (10) TMI 2
  
  The High Court of Madras ruled that the income of Rs. 2,044 from a house property in Bunder Street, Madras, is taxable in the assessee's hands. The court found that the transfer of Rs. 45,000 to the wife was a gift and not for adequate consideration, making it taxable income. The court rejected the assessee's contention that the income from the house property cannot be linked to the gift to the wife. The judgment was against the assessee with costs.

  ---

• 1965 (10) TMI 1
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether joint receivers appointed by the court can be assessed for income chargeable for an assessment year prior to their appointment.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment of the High Court of Allahabad addressed the issue of whether joint receivers appointed by the court could be assessed for income chargeable for an assessment year prior to their appointment. The case involved receivers appointed for spinning mills and a flour mill previously owned by the John family. The receivers were appointed to manage and preserve the mills following a legal dispute initiated by Seth Loon Karan Sethiya in 1949. The petitioners, who were appointed as joint receivers after the decease of the previous receiver, were served with notices by the Income-tax Officer for three assessment years. The petitioners challenged the validity of the notices, arguing that they were not liable to file returns for the period before their appointment as receivers.
  
  The court analyzed the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically Chapter XV, which deals with liability in special cases. The Act defines "representative assessee" in section 160(1)(iii) as including any receiver appointed by a court who receives or is entitled to receive income on behalf of any person. The respondent argued that the petitioners, as receivers, were entitled to receive the income and thus fell within this definition. However, the court disagreed, stating that the definition of "representative assessee" pertains to income earned during the time the receiver holds that status. The court clarified that income can only accrue or be received once by the same assessee, and if the income accrued to the earlier receiver, it became taxable at that time, regardless of when it was actually received by the subsequent receiver. Therefore, the petitioners were not considered "representative assessees" for the relevant assessment years.
  
  Furthermore, the respondent contended that the petitioners were legal representatives of the deceased receiver and thus liable for assessment under section 159 of the Act. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the petitioners did not represent the estate of the deceased receiver as required by the definition of "legal representative." The court noted that the property under the receiver's management did not vest in the receivers, and their appointment did not involve the devolution of any estate from the deceased receiver. Consequently, the court held that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under section 148 of the Act were without jurisdiction.
  
  In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the relevant assessment years. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that the impugned proceedings were not within the jurisdiction of the respondent. The court did not delve into the submissions regarding the petitioners' liability as an association of persons or the extent of their liability, as the primary issue of jurisdiction had been resolved in favor of the petitioners.

  ---

1234