Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (2.32 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs State Bank Of India, Calcutta on 29 March, 1956

A.V.R.A. Veerappa Chettiar vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 August, 1958

22. The question, whether the expression 'annual charge' should be construed as meaning only an annual payment without any reference to security for that payment did not really rise for determination in Commissioner of Income-tax v. State Bank of India (1957) 31 I.T.R. 545. The payments the learned Chief Justice had to consider in that case were specifically charged upon the house property in question there, in the sense that the house property was constituted security for those payments. Though the observations are obiter they come from so experienced and learned a Judge, they are certainly entitled to great respect. With all respect to the learned Chief Justice, we regret our inability to accept as correct the interpretation he placed upon the expression 'annual charge' in its context Section 9(1)(iv) of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Av. R. A. Veerappa Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 6 August, 1958

The question, whether the expression annual charge should be construed as meaning only an annual payment without any reference to security for that payment, did not really arise for determination in Commissioner of Income tax v. State Bank of India. The payments the learned Chief Justice had to consider in that case were specifically charged upon the house property in question there, in the sense that the house property was constituted security for those payments. Though the observations are obiter, when they come from so experienced and learned a Judge, they are certainly entitled to great respect. With all respect to the learned Chief Justice, we regret our inability to accept as correct the interpretation he placed upon the expression "annual charge" in its context in section 9 (1) (iv) of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

D. Rm. Sp. Sv. Firm By Partner O. Rm. ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 9 February, 1960

6. Mr. Rama Rao Sahib, learned counsel for the department, pointed out that the assessee obtained the income in question, the income from tile houses, in the course of his business activities. He had acquired houses as part of his business activities, and he held them as part of the stock-in-trade in that business, though the business was money lending. Learned counsel urged that it should, in the circumstances of the case, be treated as income from business for purposes of levy of business profits tax. Learned counsel relied on the observations at page 181 (of ITR): (at p. 930 of AIR) in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Calcutta National Bank Ltd., .
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

The New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 12 May, 1959

" The Crown, therefore, failed before the Commissioners to establish the only measure of value for which it was contending. It was, however, suggested that this difficulty could be avoided by sending the matter back to the Commissioners, so as to give the Crown an opportunity of setting up a different measure of value supported by different evidence. Even assuming that this was the only difficulty in the way of the Crown's argument, it would not, in my opinion, have been proper to take this course. The Crown failed in its contention on a matter of fact and it must abide by. the result: it would be contrary to all principle to give it another chance to establish by fresh and different evidence a quite different contention which, if it was desired to rely upon it, ought to have been advanced in the first instance. Our task is to deal with the case on the basis of the facts as found by the Commissioners upon the submissions made to them, and on this basis the value of the investments has not been established." I In Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. State Bank of India (2), Chakravartti, C.J., who delivered the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta said at p. 551 :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 166 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document
1