Smt. Girija Reddy, P, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 3 April, 2012
In the case of N.A. Modi (supra) and H.R. Aslot's case (supra)
the facts and manner of retirement and payment of consideration
were identical.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.84 seconds)Documents citing
Commissioner Of Agricultural Income ... vs M.N. Moni on 18 May, 2007
Vidya Education Investments Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Ito, New Delhi on 22 June, 2018
annual value of house property. He has submitted that there
are two methods to be kept in mind for judging annual letting
value i.e., the standard rent if property is subject to Rent
Control Act or the Municipal Ratable Value for the purpose of
house tax would be the annual letting value where there is no
standard rent. Therefore, the method applied by the Ld. CIT(A)
by applying 8% of the investment is highly improper and not
applicable to the Income Tax Act. Merely because the family
member of Shri Vineet Nayyar controlled both the institutions
by himself is no ground to reject the fair rental value shown by
assessee. The Charitable Trust can pay to the Trustee rent
which is reasonable for such services. The property was let out
to educational institution which may not be used for
commercial purpose or residential purpose. Therefore, the rent
was reasonable, which was also lesser in earlier year and
accepted. The Ld. CIT(A) has not given any comparable case
while fixing the annual letting value of the property. The
Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of the
Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Moni
10
ITA.No.6177/Del./2014 Vidya Education
Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Matrix Partners India Investment ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 29 January, 2025
Now, the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act is that income, profits
and gains of an assessee are liable to tax subject to certain exemptions
and exceptions. Although certain sums may be exempted from taxation,
still they may form part of the total income of an assessee in order to
determine the rate at which income-tax is payable. Therefore it follows
that the total income of an assessee is not necessarily wholly subject to
I.T.A. No.3097/Mum/2023
A.Y. 2020-21
24
tax. Portions of it may be exempt from taxation and yet may be
computed for the purpose of determining the rate at which tax is
payable. Mr. Joshi's contention is that all sums which are exempted
from taxation must still be brought into the total income of the assessee
for the purpose of determining the rate at which income-tax is payable,
except where the statute in terms excludes these sums from the total
income of the assessee. It is pointed out that in Section 4, sub-section
(3), certain incomes, profits or gains falling within the classes mentioned
in that sub-section are not to be included in the total income of the
person receiving the income, and Mr. Joshi argues that except in these
cases, in every other case, although the tax is not payable on certain
sums, they must be included in the total income for the purpose of
determining the rate. It is therefore argued that although under Section
25(4) an exemption is given to the assessee because there is a
succession to the business carried on and no tax is payable by the
assessee, the sum which is exempted under this sub-section does form
part of the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. Total
income is defined in Section 2(15) of the Act, and it means total amount
of income, profits and gains computed in the manner laid down in this
Act. Therefore, it would be erroneous to suggest that total income is to
be determined only in the light of Section 4, sub-section (3), of the Act.
Bay Capital India Fund Limited,Mumbai vs Cit (A) 55, Mumbai, Mumbai on 8 April, 2025
Now, the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act is that income, profits and gains
of an assessee are liable to tax subject to certain exemptions and exceptions.
Although certain sums may be exempted from taxation, still they may form part
of the total income of an assessee in order to determine the rate at which income-
tax is payable. Therefore it follows that the total income of an assessee is not
necessarily wholly subject to tax. Portions of it may be exempt from taxation and
yet may be computed for the purpose of determining the rate at which tax is
payable. Mr. Joshi's contention is that all sums which are exempted from taxation
must still be brought into the total income of the assessee for the purpose of
determining the rate at which income-tax is payable, except where the statute in
terms excludes these sums from the total income of the assessee. It is pointed
out that in Section 4, sub-section (3), certain incomes, profits or gains falling
within the classes mentioned in that sub-section are not to be included in the total
income of the person receiving the income, and Mr. Joshi argues that except in
these cases, in every other case, although the tax is not payable on certain sums,
they must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.
It is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to
the assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax
is payable by the assessee, the sum which is exempted under this sub-section
does form part of the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. Total
income is defined in Section 2(15) of the Act, and it means total amount of income,
profits and gains computed in the manner laid down in this Act. Therefore, it would
be erroneous to suggest that total income is to be determined only in the light of
Section 4, sub-section (3), of the Act. How total income is to be computed and
determined depends upon the various provisions contained in the Act as a whole.
Then we might look at various sections which provide for exemptions from the
payment of tax. There is Section 7 which contains various provisos which cover
sums not liable to tax. Similarly Section 8. Section 14 also contains exemptions
with regard to certain sums on which no tax is payable, and Section 15 contains
exemptions in cases of life insurance. It will be noticed that the language used in
all these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the
language used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different
sums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these various
exemptions which I have enumerated, although tax is not payable, they should all
be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate payable in
respect of income-tax. Now, the short and conclusive answer to that contention is
Section 16 of the Indian Income-tax Act. It is that section which in terms includes
in the total income of an assessee only certain sums which are exempted from the
payment of tax. Therefore, by implication, where the sums are not included in the
total income by Section 16, those sums are not only exempted from the payment
of tax, but they are also excluded from the total income. Now, when we look at
Section 16, it does not include the sum covered by Section 25(4) as a sum which
is to be included in the total income of the assessee. The scheme, therefore, of
the Income-tax Act is clear and is very different from what Mr. Joshi suggests it
is. The scheme is that wherever one finds an exemption or exclusion from payment
of tax, the exemption or exclusion also operates for the purpose of computing the
total income. Not only is the sum not liable to tax, but it is also not to form part
of the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. When the Legislature
indends that certain sums, although not liable to tax, should be included in the
ITA No.6355/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2019-20) 13
total income, it expressly so provides, as it is done in Section 16, and therefore
Prima facie, when we come to Section 25(4) and when we find that the assessee
is not liable to pay tax on the sum received by him as his share of the partnership,
that sum cannot and does not form part of his total income. Mr. Joshi has not
succeeded in pointing out to us any provision in the Act whereby this particular
sum covered by Section 25 (4) has been made a part of the total income of the
assessee. Therefore, in my opinion, the share of the profit of the assessee in the
firm of S.B. Billimoria & Co., in the accounting year 1942 cannot be included in
the total income of the assessee for ascertaining the rate of income-tax.
Prashant Kothari,Singapore vs Cit A (57) Mumbai, Office Of ... on 29 May, 2025
Ishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 11 June, 2025
Now, the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act is that income, profits and gains
of an assessee are liable to tax subject to certain exemptions and exceptions.
Although certain sums may be exempted from taxation, still they may form part
of the total income of an assessee in order to determine the rate at which income-
tax is payable. Therefore it follows that the total income of an assessee is not
necessarily wholly subject to tax. Portions of it may be exempt from taxation and
yet may be computed for the purpose of determining the rate at which tax is
payable. Mr. Joshi's contention is that all sums which are exempted from taxation
ITAs No. 2085, 2134, 2147, 2148, 2149, 2150, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154/ Mum/2025 36
must still be brought into the total income of the assessee for the purpose of
determining the rate at which income-tax is payable, except where the statute in
terms excludes these sums from the total income of the assessee. It is pointed
out that in Section 4, sub-section (3), certain incomes, profits or gains falling
within the classes mentioned in that sub-section are not to be included in the total
income of the person receiving the income, and Mr. Joshi argues that except in
these cases, in every other case, although the tax is not payable on certain sums,
they must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.
It is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to
the assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax
is payable by the assessee, the sum which is exempted under this sub-section
does form part of the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. Total
income is defined in Section 2(15) of the Act, and it means total amount of income,
profits and gains computed in the manner laid down in this Act. Therefore, it would
be erroneous to suggest that total income is to be determined only in the light of
Section 4, sub-section (3), of the Act. How total income is to be computed and
determined depends upon the various provisions contained in the Act as a whole.
Then we might look at various sections which provide for exemptions from the
payment of tax. There is Section 7 which contains various provisos which cover
sums not liable to tax. Similarly Section 8. Section 14 also contains exemptions
with regard to certain sums on which no tax is payable, and Section 15 contains
exemptions in cases of life insurance. It will be noticed that the language used in
all these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the
language used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different
sums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these various
exemptions which I have enumerated, although tax is not payable, they should all
be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate payable in
respect of income-tax. Now, the short and conclusive answer to that contention is
Section 16 of the Indian Income-tax Act. It is that section which in terms includes
in the total income of an assessee only certain sums which are exempted from the
payment of tax. Therefore, by implication, where the sums are not included in the
total income by Section 16, those sums are not only exempted from the payment
of tax, but they are also excluded from the total income. Now, when we look at
Section 16, it does not include the sum covered by Section 25(4) as a sum which
is to be included in the total income of the assessee. The scheme, therefore, of
the Income-tax Act is clear and is very different from what Mr. Joshi suggests it
is. The scheme is that wherever one finds an exemption or exclusion from payment
of tax, the exemption or exclusion also operates for the purpose of computing the
total income. Not only is the sum not liable to tax, but it is also not to form part
of the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. When the Legislature
indends that certain sums, although not liable to tax, should be included in the
total income, it expressly so provides, as it is done in Section 16, and therefore
Prima facie, when we come to Section 25(4) and when we find that the assessee
is not liable to pay tax on the sum received by him as his share of the partnership,
that sum cannot and does not form part of his total income. Mr. Joshi has not
succeeded in pointing out to us any provision in the Act whereby this particular
sum covered by Section 25 (4) has been made a part of the total income of the
assessee. Therefore, in my opinion, the share of the profit of the assessee in the
firm of S.B. Billimoria & Co., in the accounting year 1942 cannot be included in
the total income of the assessee for ascertaining the rate of income-tax.
Arjun Patil vs Uoi & Ors on 14 October, 2025
20. The Apex Court in Commr. of Agricultural Income Tax v. M.N.
Moni, (2007) 10 SCC 584 while dealing with a challenge to order passed by
a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court answering the reference made to
it under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, elucidated the
distinction between a question of law and question of fact and held as under:
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It) 2 ... vs Citigroup Global Markets Mauritus ... on 12 March, 2026
Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, LLC [2025] 173
taxmann.com 727 (Mumbai - Trib.) (supra) (Refer Pg. No. 77 to
90 of Legal Paperbook)
"7.1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. M. N. Raigi
reported in [1949] 17 ITR 180 (Bombay) considered as to whether
share income of a partner which does not form part of the total
income, is to be added to the total income in order to determine the
rate at which income tax was payable by the partner. Section 16 of
Income tax Act 1922, corresponding to section 66 of the Income tax
Act 1961 was subject matter for consideration in the aforesaid
decision. Hon'ble Court af ter analysing the scheme of computation
observed and held as under
Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan ... vs Dcit (Int. Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai on 2 January, 2026
Now, the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act is that income, profits and gains
of an assessee are liable to tax subject to certain exemptions and exceptions.
Although certain sums may be exempted from taxation, still they may form part
of the total income of an assessee in order to determine the rate at which income-
tax is payable. Therefore it follows that the total income of an assessee is not
necessarily wholly subject to tax. Portions of it may be exempt from taxation and
yet may be computed for the purpose of determining the rate at which tax is
payable. Mr. Joshi's contention is that all sums which are exempted from taxation
must still be brought into the total income of the assessee for the purpose of
determining the rate at which income-tax is payable, except where the statute in
terms excludes these sums from the total income of the assessee. It is pointed
out that in Section 4, sub-section (3), certain incomes, profits or gains falling
within the classes mentioned in that sub-section are not to be included in the total
income of the person receiving the income, and Mr. Joshi argues that except in
these cases, in every other case, although the tax is not payable on certain sums,
they must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate.
It is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to
the assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax
is payable by the assessee, the sum which is exempted under this sub-section
does form part of the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. Total
income is defined in Section 2(15) of the Act, and it means total amount of income,
profits and gains computed in the manner laid down in this Act. Therefore, it would
be erroneous to suggest that total income is to be determined only in the light of
Section 4, sub-section (3), of the Act. How total income is to be computed and
determined depends upon the various provisions contained in the Act as a whole.
Then we might look at various sections which provide for exemptions from the
payment of tax. There is Section 7 which contains various provisos which cover
sums not liable to tax. Similarly Section 8. Section 14 also contains exemptions
with regard to certain sums on which no tax is payable, and Section 15 contains
ITAs No.6050, 6051 & 6774/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23 & 2023-24) 22
exemptions in cases of life insurance. It will be noticed that the language used in
all these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the
language used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different
sums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these various
exemptions which I have enumerated, although tax is not payable, they should all
be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate payable in
respect of income-tax. Now, the short and conclusive answer to that contention is
Section 16 of the Indian Income-tax Act. It is that section which in terms includes
in the total income of an assessee only certain sums which are exempted from the
payment of tax. Therefore, by implication, where the sums are not included in the
total income by Section 16, those sums are not only exempted from the payment
of tax, but they are also excluded from the total income. Now, when we look at
Section 16, it does not include the sum covered by Section 25(4) as a sum which
is to be included in the total income of the assessee. The scheme, therefore, of
the Income-tax Act is clear and is very different from what Mr. Joshi suggests it
is. The scheme is that wherever one finds an exemption or exclusion from payment
of tax, the exemption or exclusion also operates for the purpose of computing the
total income. Not only is the sum not liable to tax, but it is also not to form part
of the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. When the Legislature
indends that certain sums, although not liable to tax, should be included in the
total income, it expressly so provides, as it is done in Section 16, and therefore
Prima facie, when we come to Section 25(4) and when we find that the assessee
is not liable to pay tax on the sum received by him as his share of the partnership,
that sum cannot and does not form part of his total income. Mr. Joshi has not
succeeded in pointing out to us any provision in the Act whereby this particular
sum covered by Section 25 (4) has been made a part of the total income of the
assessee. Therefore, in my opinion, the share of the profit of the assessee in the
firm of S.B. Billimoria & Co., in the accounting year 1942 cannot be included in
the total income of the assessee for ascertaining the rate of income-tax.
Alibaba. Com Singapore E Commerce ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 11 May, 2026
Now, the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act is that income, profits and
gains of an assessee are liable to tax subject to certain exemptions and
exceptions. Although certain sums may be exempted from taxation, still
they may form part of the total income of an assessee in order to
determine the rate at which income-tax is payable. Therefore it follows
that the total income of an assessee is not necessarily wholly subject to
tax. Portions of it may be exempt from taxation and yet may be computed
for the purpose of determining the rate at which tax is payable. Mr. Joshi's
18
ITA 2070/MUM/2025
ALIBABA. COM SINGAPORE E
COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED
contention is that all sums which are exempted from taxation must still
be brought into the total income of the assessee for the purpose of
determining the rate at which income-tax is payable, except where the
statute in terms excludes these sums from the total income of the
assessee. It is pointed out that in Section 4, sub-section (3), certain
incomes, profits or gains falling within the classes mentioned in that sub-
section are not to be included in the total income of the person receiving
the income, and Mr. Joshi argues that except in these cases, in every other
case, although the tax is not payable on certain sums, they must be
included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. It is
therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given
to the assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on
and no tax is payable by the assessee, the sum which is exempted under
this sub-section does form part of the total income for the purpose of
determining the rate. Total income is defined in Section 2(15) of the Act,
and it means total amount of income, profits and gains computed in the
manner laid down in this Act. Therefore, it would be erroneous to suggest
that total income is to be determined only in the light of Section 4, sub-
section (3), of the Act. How total income is to be computed and determined
depends upon the various provisions contained in the Act as a whole.
Then we might look at various sections which provide for exemptions from
the payment of tax. There is Section 7 which contains various provisos
which cover sums not liable to tax. Similarly Section 8. Section 14 also
contains exemptions with regard to certain sums on which no tax is
payable, and Section 15 contains exemptions in cases of life insurance. It
will be noticed that the language used in all these sections, to which I
have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the language used in
Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different sums.
Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these
various exemptions which I have enumerated, although tax is not
payable, they should all be included in the total income for the purpose of
determining the rate payable in respect of income-tax. Now, the short and
conclusive answer to that contention is Section 16 of the Indian Income-
tax Act. It is that section which in terms includes in the total income of an
assessee only certain sums which are exempted from the payment of tax.
Therefore, by implication, where the sums are not included in the total
income by Section 16, those sums are not only exempted from the
payment of tax, but they are also excluded from the total income. Now,
when we look at Section 16, it does not include the sum covered by
Section 25(4) as a sum which is to be included in the total income of the
assessee. The scheme, therefore, of the Income-tax Act is clear and is very
different from what Mr. Joshi suggests it is. The scheme is that wherever
one finds an exemption or exclusion from payment of tax, the exemption
or exclusion also operates for the purpose of computing the total income.
Not only is the sum not liable to tax, but it is also not to form part of the
total income for the purpose of determining the rate. When the Legislature
19
ITA 2070/MUM/2025
ALIBABA. COM SINGAPORE E
COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED
indends that certain sums, although not liable to tax, should be included
in the total income, it expressly so provides, as it is done in Section 16,
and therefore Prima facie, when we come to Section 25(4) and when we
find that the assessee is not liable to pay tax on the sum received by him
as his share of the partnership, that sum cannot and does not form part
of his total income. Mr. Joshi has not succeeded in pointing out to us any
provision in the Act whereby this particular sum covered by Section 25 (4)
has been made a part of the total income of the assessee. Therefore, in
my opinion, the share of the profit of the assessee in the firm of S.B.
Billimoria & Co., in the accounting year 1942 cannot be included in the
total income of the assessee for ascertaining the rate of income-tax.