Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (3.09 seconds)
Documents citing Raja Raghunandan Prasad Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 January, 1933

In Re: Ratan Chand Lallu Mal vs Unknown on 10 September, 1935

In Raghunandan Prasad Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa 1929 Pat 476 all that was held by their Lordships of the Patna High Court was that where a person advances money on a mortgage and subsequently gets the interest added to the principal and takes a fresh mortgage for the consolidated amount, but does not show the added interest separately as interest realised in his books of account of that year in the interest account or in his personal account, the inference is that the original bond is not extinguished from the point of view of the Income-tax administration since nothing is received by him as income, profit or gain in that year.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shrimati Singari Bai. on 23 February, 1954

The converse case arose in Raja Raghunandan Prasad Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa, which was also a case of a renewed security. In that case a fresh mortgage had been accepted by the assessee in discharge of the principal and interest due under an earlier mortgage, but the interest due under earlier mortgage was not treated in the assessees books of accounts as having been pair of realized, and it was held by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee that, in view of the method of accounting adopted by the assessee, the interest due on the earlier mortgage and included in the renewed mortgage was not liable to the payment of tax. Their Lordships in the course of their judgment pointed out that "the assessee, it is important to bear in mind, keep their accounts on a cash basis." The interest of the case is that it seems to have been accepted by their Lordships of the Privy Council that the regular method of accounting adopted by the assessee was the test whether the unreceived interest in question was liable or not to be computed for Indian Income-tax purposes as the profits and gains amenable to tax of the money-lending business of the assessee.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shrimati Shingari Bai on 23 February, 1945

16. The converse case arose in Raghunandan Prasad Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa ('33) 20 A.I.R. 1933 P.C. 101, which was also a case of a renewed security. In that case a fresh mortgage had been accepted by the assessee in discharge of the principal and interest due under an earlier mortgage, but the interest due under the earlier mortgage was not treated in the assessee's books of accounts as having been paid or realised, and it was held by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee that, in view of the method of accounting adopted by the assessee, the interest due on the earlier mortgage and included in the renewed mortgage was not liable to the payment of tax. Their Lordships in the course of their judgment pointed out that "the assessees, it is important to bear in mind, keep their accounts on a cash basis." The interest of the case is that it seems to have been accepted by their Lordships of the Privy Council that the regular method of accounting adopted by the assessee was the test whether the unreceived interest in question was liable or not to be computed for Indian income-tax purposes as the profits and gains amenable to tax of the money-lending business of the assessee.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Chimanlal Narsibhai vs Amratlal Chhotalal Shah And Anr. on 21 March, 1974

16. I find that as early as the year 1933, the Privy Council has endorsed the view that the deeming retrospective clause of Section 65, C.P.C. does not come into operation till the sale becomes absolute and hence the auction purchaser can he said to have obtained an indefeasible title on the date of the sale. This view is taken by the Privy Council in Raghunandan Prasad Singh v. Commr. of Income-tax Bihar & Orissa, AIR 1933 PC 101.That was an income-tax case, which went up before their Lordships of the judicial committee. One of the questions for consideration in that case was whether the assessee who had purchased in an auction sale the property of his mortgagor in execution of his mortgage decree was liable to pay income-tax on the amount by which the value of the purchased property exceeded the original loan advanced to the mortgagor together with costs and other incidental expenses. The auction sale in that case was confirmed some years after the sale was knocked down. The assessee relied upon the provisions of Section 65, C.P.C. and contended that he must be deemed in law to have realised his loan and made a profit not in the year when the sale was confirmed but in the year in which the title became vested in him, namely, the year when the sale was held. But their Lordships of the Judicial Committee overruled this contention as is evident from the following observations taken from the judgment of their Lordships delivered by Lord Macmillan:
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Indian Molasses Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 21 December, 1955

34. On behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax Mr. Meyer relied on the decision of the Privy Council in the case of -- 'Raghunandan Prasad v. Income-tax Commissioner, B & O', . In that case, a mortgagee who had obtained a decree upon his mortgage brought the property to sale and purchased it himself. It appeared that a minor was claiming a share in the property and had brought a suit for a declaration that his share was not affected by the decree.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ramchandra Bhagat And Anr. vs Mrs. Eva Mitra And Ors. on 3 September, 1958

The effect of the legal position embodied in this rule is that the auction purchaser does not obtain an indefeasible right on the date of the sale for under p. 21, Ryles 89, 90 and 91, the sale may be set aside on various grounds. It is only where no application is made under these rules, or where such applicatoin is made and disallowed that the Court under Order 21, Rule 92, makes an order confirming the sale, whereupon "the sale shall Income absolute." (See Raghunandan Prasad Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, B. and O. AIR 1933 PC 101). In reply Mr. Mukharji put forward the argument that although the title of the purchaser is not complete till the confirmation of the sale he has nonetheless acquired an interest in the properties, and when the sale is not set aside in accordance with the provisions of rule 92 after the expiry of thirty days. the sale becomes automatically absolute and the confirmation of sale is a mere formal matter. It is true that under Rule 92 no sale can be confirmed or can become absolute until the expiration of the period of thirty days from the date of sale, and further it is duty of the Court to confirm the sale on the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in rule 92, even without an application by the party concerned, it will be wrong to say that there is an automatic confirmation of the sale after the expiration of thirty days.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next