Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 215 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. K. George Thomas vs The C.I.T. Kerala, Ernakulam on 23 September, 1985

Ms. Payal Kapur vs Asstt. C.I.T. on 18 November, 2005

In the case of Dr. K. George Thomas v. CIT 156 ITR 412 (S.C) their Lordships of Supreme Court held that "the assessee -carried on a vocation of practicing against atheism and in the course of such vocation and for the purpose of the same, he received the amounts -in -question-as -donations for the furtherance of the objects of his vocation. There was a link between the activities of the appellant and the payments received by-him and -the link was close enough. The receipts arose to the appellant from the carrying on of his vocation and they were not casual and non-recurring receipts and were taxable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

C.P. Chitrarasu (By Legal ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 February, 1986

In the case of Dr. K. George Thomas v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 412, the Supreme Court, on the facts of that case, held that the assessee carried on a vocation of preaching against atheism and in the course of such vocation and for the purpose of the same, he received the amounts in question as donations for the furtherance of the objects of his vocation and that there was a link between the activities of the assessee and the payments received by him and the link was close enough. It was positively found that the receipts arose to the assessee from the carrying on of his vocation and they were not casual and non-recurring receipts and were taxable.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Govindaraj vs The Inspector Of Police on 10 February, 2020

In this regard it would be relevant to note here that in line with the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Court of Kerala in the matter of Thomas Vs State of Kerala through Sub Inspector, vide para 4 has held that .... As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh (1962 SC 63), the http://www.judis.nic.in expression police duties will include all the functions of the 6 police in connection with the purpose of the Act and in the special context of the Act, they will include detection, prevention and investigation of offences and the other duties which have been specifically imposed on them under the Act. Therefore, it is only the Special officer who is authorised to arrest and investigate the case under the Act, Crmc 3533/09 subject to the provisions of Section 14. Proviso to Section 14 provides that arrest without warrant can only be made by the Special Police Officer under his direction or guidance subject to his prior approval....
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - A D Chandira - Full Document

Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 28 February, 2001

12. We find that, as observed by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. K George Thomas v. CIT (supra), "the burden is on the revenue to establish that the receipt is of a revenue nature" though "once the receipt is found to be of revenue character, where it comes under exemption or not, it is for the assessee to establish". No doubt that the Income Tax Act imposes a general liability to tax upon all income, but it does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that it is within the taxing provisions. However, where a receipt is proved to be in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within an exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. In the case before us, revenue has not sufficiently discharged its onus of proving that the receipt in question is a revenue receipt in nature. The revenue has at best made efforts to demonstrate that the receipt in question is not taxable as a capital gain and, therefore, it can only be in nature of revenue receipt. However, there is a glaring fallacy in this argument, since merely the fact that a receipt is not taxable as a capital gain would not imply, or even suggest, that such a receipt is revenue receipt. There can always be, and have been, cases in which receipts are held to be capital receipts in nature and yet not chargeable to tax as a capital gain.
Calcutta High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K.Kiran Kumar vs The State Rep. By on 15 December, 2020

In this regard it would be relevant to note here that in line with the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Court of Kerala in the matter of Thomas Vs State of Kerala through Sub Inspector, vide para 4 has held that .... As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh (1962 SC 63), the special context of the Act, they will include detection, prevention and investigation of offences and the other duties which have been specifically imposed on them under the Act. Therefore, it is only the Special officer who is authorised to arrest and investigate the case under the Act, Crmc 3533/09 subject to the provisions of Section 14. Proviso to Section 14 provides that arrest without warrant can only be made by the Special Police Officer under his direction or guidance subject to his prior approval....
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

Manikandan vs The State Rep. By on 15 December, 2020

In this regard it would be relevant to note here that in line with the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Court of Kerala in the matter of Thomas Vs State of Kerala through Sub Inspector, vide para 4 has held that .... As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh (1962 SC 63), the special context of the Act, they will include detection, prevention and investigation of offences and the other duties which have been specifically imposed on them under the Act. Therefore, it is only the Special officer who is authorised to arrest and investigate the case under the Act, Crmc 3533/09 subject to the provisions of Section 14. Proviso to Section 14 provides that arrest without warrant can only be made by the Special Police Officer under his direction or guidance subject to his prior approval....
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

Institute Of The Fransican ... vs Union Of India on 22 December, 2016

44.In the case of Dr.K.George Thomas vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1985) 156 ITR 0412, the question was whether donations received by the assessee therein constituted income. The said assessee carried on a vocation of preaching against atheism and received donations for the furtherance of the objects of his vocation. It was held that the receipts arose to the assessee from the carrying on of the vocation by the assessee and these were not casual and non-recurring and were taxable. What is important to note is that the said assessee was not a missionary though belonged to christian religion and he appears to be an evangelist associated himself to a religious mission in United States of America. Therefore, the said decision does not help the case of the revenue.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 2 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

)R.Saravanakumar vs )The State Represented By on 2 December, 2020

In this regard it would be relevant to note here that in line with the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Court of Kerala in the matter of Thomas Vs State of Kerala through Sub Inspector, vide para 4 has held that .... As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Ram Singh (1962 SC 63), the special context of the Act, they will include detection, prevention and investigation of offences and the other duties 5/11 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3689 of 2020 which have been specifically imposed on them under the Act. Therefore, it is only the Special officer who is authorised to arrest and investigate the case under the Act, Crmc 3533/09 subject to the provisions of Section 14. Proviso to Section 14 provides that arrest without warrant can only be made by the Special Police Officer under his direction or guidance subject to his prior approval....
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

Al-Madeena Charitable Trust vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 1 November, 1999

35. Coming to the alternative plea that the voluntary contributions should be treated as gifts or capital receipts and are not taxable, the same cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. K. George Thomas case (supra). This was the case of an assessee who got educated in the USA and came to India. He started running a magazine 'Viswa Deepam' and for achieving this object collected money through the Indian Gospel Mission in the USA. Subsequently the assessee started publishing a newspaper called 'Kerala Dwani'. The assessee received/collected donations from abroad and returned a loss income under the head 'business'. When the assessee was asked to explain the credits which were noticed on scrutiny, the assessee said that they were donations received from USA through an Organisation known as Indian Christian Crusade, USA. The names of the persons who had donated were not available. It was contended that the receipts were purely personal gifts for the personal qualities of the assessee and that the payments were voluntary. When the matter was carried before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the receipts were casual and non-recurring in nature and did not arise in the course of exercise of any vocation. The High Court found that the receipts had arisen from the exercise of an occupation by the assessee and should have been included in the total income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the assessee was carrying on a vocation of practising against atheism and the donations received by him from USA for the furtherance of the objects of his vocation were not casual and non-recurring receipts. In the instant case of the assessee, the assessee has produced certificates from the donors who had donated more than Rs. 6,000 to establish that they are donations towards the corpus. Since we have held that the assessee's business is not incidental to the attainment of the objects of the trust, the benefit of section 11(1)(a) which reads as under -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next