Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 133 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bihar & ... vs Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh Of ... on 17 October, 1939

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Partabmull Rameshwar on 26 February, 1975

In 1943, the income-tax authorities sought to reassess, under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, those interests as his income of the assessment year 1939-40 and strong reliance was placed on behalf of the revenue authorities on the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga [1933] 1 ITR 94 (PC) in support of such reassessment, but Harries C.J. at page 304 of [1951] 20 ITR 293 (Cal) of the report overruled such contention in the following terms :
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Raja Bahadur Vishweshwara Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 3 August, 1954

In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kameshwar Singh the assessees father who carried on a money lending business made a loan under an indenture described as "a zarpeshgi lease with usufructuary mortgage". A certain portion of the rent was reserved to the mortgagor as thika rent and the mortgagee was allowed to take the balance of the profits after deducting the expenses as thika profits in consideration of the loan. It was held by the Judicial Committee that thika profits received by the assessee as mortgagee lessee were exempt from income-tax, being agricultural income. Mr. Mazumdar relied strongly on the following passage from the judgment of Lord Macmillan in this case :- "The result, in their Lordships opinion, is to exclude agricultural income altogether from the scope of the Act, however or by whomsoever it may be received.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishweshwar Singh vs Commr. Of Income-Tax on 3 August, 1954

19. Mr. Mazumdar challenged the correctness of the Bombay decision and in support of his argument referred to three authorities -- 'Commissioner of Income-tax, B. and O. v. Kameshwar Singh', AIR 1935 PC 172 (G); -- 'Governor General in Council v. Raleigh Investment Co., Ltd.', AIR 1044 PC 51 (H) and -- 'Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd.', AIR 1936 PC 219 (I).
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United Phosphorus Limited vs Joint Cit on 22 May, 2001

20. The contention of the learned counsel that such income was contingent and uncertain until the goods are actually imported, is not in conformity with the method of accounting of the accrual concept adopted by them in relation to accounting for of such income in the books of account after a careful consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It may be relevant here to refer the judgment of the Honble Privy Council in the case of CIT v. Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh (supra). At page 101, the relevant extracts are reproduced below :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 223 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Srimati Lakshmi Daiji vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 15 February, 1944

As it is income and not the person that is taxed, the character of the recipient is irrelevant, as was held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa v. Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga. In that case the respondent was, by means of a transaction embodied in two indentures, placed in possession of certain properties and was solely entitled to sue for rents which were admittedly within the description given in Section 2 (1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act. In the judgment delivered by Lord Macmillan at the foot of page 221 of the report it is stated : "The appellant concedes that if the respondent were not a money-lender and if the transaction in virtue of which he receives the rents had not been a transaction entered into in the course of his money-lending business, he would have been entitled to invoke the statutory exemption of agricultural income; but the appellant submits that the fact that the respondent carries on a money-lending business and receives the rents as the result of a transaction entered into in the course of that business makes all the difference." The appellants contention failed in that case, which, therefore, shows that the transaction to be considered in determining the source of any item of income is the transaction which creates that income and not any transaction which merely decides which of one of more persons shall receive the income.
Patna High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Vrajlal Manilal And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M.P. on 24 November, 1972

In this connection we might observe that what their Lordships of the Privy council laid down in Commissioner Income-tax v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga was that where the assessee keeps his books on a hybrid system and it is his practice to enter sums as he received them in a deposit register not made available to the revenue authorities, without discriminating between interest and capital payments, and then subsequently to allocate and treat as income certain portions of these sums which he attributed to interest, the Income-tax authorities will not be acting illegally in computing the total income of the assessee for a particular year as consisting in part of actual receipts in that year and in part of sums carried by the assessee to income account in that year out of the receipts of previous years which have been held in suspense and no part of which has previously been returned as income. Thus, according to their Lordships of the Privy council, the previous years returns are material and would furnish good evidence for arriving at a conclusion in the matter of computing profits for the subsequent assessment years.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next