Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 56 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing V.S.S.V. Meenakshi Achi And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 17 December, 1965

Bengal & Assam Investors Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 May, 1982

In this behalf, the Allahabad High Court had an occasion to consider this question and came to a similar conclusion even earlier in and somewhat similar is the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in V.S.S.V. Meenakshi v. CIT , where the amounts received by the assessee were earmarked on the basis of the rubber produced by them although they related to cesses collected under the Rubber Industry (Replanting) Fund Ordinance, 1952. There is another distinguishing feature in our mind. In the Calcutta High Court case, the assessee was a firm of solicitors and the amount was directly apportioned by the partners in their profit sharing ratio. They could be individually held liable to their clients even though the ordinary period for recovery of some of the amounts may have expired. Here the assessee is a limited concern, nobody would be individually liable for the excess amounts retained by the assessee and there can be no dispute that these amounts were transferred to the profit and loss account of the assessee. The general principle of law is that even an illegal income which has been pocketed by an assessee can be brought to tax and it is not the case of the assessee that the amounts may have to be refunded to the clients at any later period of time. In view of all these circumstances we are of the opinion that there is no ground for interference with the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals)."
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Y.V. Anjaneyulu vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 September, 1989

139. A circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on February 28, 1979, containing information regarding the decision of the Supreme Court in V. S. S. V. Meenakshi Achi v. CIT , which laid down that rubber replantation subsidy received by an assessee was income in his hands fell for consideration before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. West Coast Industrial Co. Ltd. . The Income-tax Officer, on receipt of the circular, reopened the assessment.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 67 - Cited by 6 - K J Reddy - Full Document

M/S Chhattisgarh Mineral Development ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 17 January, 2019

10. That the judgments relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in the cases of V.S.S.V. Meenakshi Achi Vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 253 (SC) and CIT Vs. Udaya Pictures (P) Ltd. (1997) 225 ITR 394 ( Ker. HC) have been rendered on entirely different & distinguishable facts wherein the purpose of giving subsidies were given as a helping hand to conduct the business in a more portable manner.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kesoram Industries And Cotton Mills ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 February, 1978

The Supreme Court in the case of V. S. S. V. Meenakshi Achi v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] 60 ITR 253 was dealing with a case where the assessees owned rubber plantations in the Federated Malay States outside Penang. Out of a fund into which cesses collected under the Rubber Industry (Replanting) Fund Ordinance, 1952, on rubber produced in Penang and rubber exported from the Federation other than Penang, were paid, proportionate parts of the cesses so collected, after defraying expenses, were credited to the accounts of the assessees, corresponding to the amount of rubber produced by them, and payments were made to the assessees from the amounts so credited against expenditure incurred on the maintenance of the plantations. The Supreme Court held that as the amounts from the fund earmarked for the assessees on the basis of the rubber produced by them were paid against the expenditure incurred by them for maintaining the rubber plantations and producing the rubber, the amounts received by the assessees were revenue receipts and, therefore, liable to be included in their assessable income.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 19 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Handicrafts & Handloom Export ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-Ii on 10 December, 1981

11. On behalf of the Department reliance was placed open two judgment, one of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ratna Sugar Mills CIT. Ltd. v. CIT [1958] 33 ITR 644 and the other one of the Madras High Court in the case of Meenakshi Achi v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 206, which had been subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Meenakshi Achi case [1966] 60 ITR 253. We are, however, in agreement with the Appellate Tribunal that these decision do not help the Department. Both were cases in which grants-in-aid were received by an assessed from the Government.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 34 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next