Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 103 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Raj Kumar Singh Hukam Chandji vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Madhya ... on 11 August, 1970

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs K.S. Subbiah Pillai (Huf) on 11 March, 1982

We are, therefore, of the view that in view of the fact that Sankaralinga Iyer's case has been distinguished on its facts by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kalu Babu Lal Chand [1959] 37 ITR 123, which was in turn followed by the Supreme Court itself in V. D. Dhanwatey v. CIT , M. D. Dhanewatey v. CIT P. N. Krishna Iyer v. CIT CIT v. D. C. Shah and Raj Kumar Singh Hukam Chandji v. CIT , the ratio in Sankaralinga Iyer's case cannot in any way help Mr. Uttam Reddi.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Tamil ... vs Surendra Manilal Mehta And Suresh B. ... on 13 December, 1983

In Rajkumar Singh Hukam Chandji v. CIT , the managment of a company was carried on by a HUF consisting of three branches and that family was disrputed. The assessee was a branch of that family. There were further aquisitions of shares in the company and the shares which were more in the name of the assessee's family members and the shares which were more in the name of the assessee's family members and the subsequent acquisitions were all treated as the property of the assessee's family. The remuneration recived as the managing director of the company was claimed as assessable in his individual hands and not in the hands of the HUF. The Supreme Court laid down the principles applicable in such cases at page 43 as under :
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Khushal K. Shah vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 10 December, 1975

10. In these circumstances, it is impossible to hold that the remuneration which was received by K. K. Shah as a director had not been earned by reason of his personal experience, qualifications and equipment that fitted him for the appointment as director of Messrs. Gill and Company Ltd. or that it was one of the modes of return made to the family because of the investment of the family funds in the business. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Singh Hukam Chandji v. Commissioner of Income-tax , it is clear, in my opinion, that it will have to be held that the remuneration and bonus paid to K. K. Shah as director of Gill and Company Private Ltd. as well as sitting fees as director from that and other companies did not represent the income of the Hindu undivided family of which K. K. Shah was the karta but constituted his individual income. In addition to the amount of Rs. 56,300, which was sought to be taxed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family being the director's remuneration, including bonus and sitting fees received by K. K. Shah from Gill and Company Ltd., there were further amounts of Rs. 810 and Rs. 820, respectively, which represented director's fees received by K. K. Shah from companies other than Gill and Company Ltd. It has been observed by the Tribunal that "it is not disputed that any conclusion arrived at with reference to Rs. 56,000 also applied to the other amounts taxed" which would include the amounts received by K. K. Shah from the other companies. In view of this observation and in view of the conclusions reached by me as regards the remuneration and bonus received by K. K. Shah from Gill and Company Ltd., it will have to be held that the remuneration, bonus and sitting fees received by K. K. Shah as director of Gill and Company Private Ltd. and other companies did not represent the income of the Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta but his individual income.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.R. Balakrishnan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 April, 1973

10. It is in the light of this admitted position we have to see whether the remuneration as managing director received by the karta of the Hindu undivided family is the income of the Hindu undivided family. The learned counsel for the assessee would contend that even if the continuance of the karta as managing director of the company was dependent upon the Hindu undivided family holding the required shares, still the remuneration received by the karta cannot be taken to be the income of the Hindu undivided family in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Singh Hukam Chandji v. Commissioner of Income-tax, . In that case the Supreme Court had considered almost all the earlier decisions on the point and expressed :
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs G.V. Rathaiah on 26 December, 1984

Unless it is shown that the remuneration was essentially earned as a result of the funds invested by the joint family, it is not possible to ignore the fact that the karta or any member of the joint family had rendered services to the company. If, in a given case, evidence is forthcoming to establish the contention that the remuneration was essentially earned as a result of the funds invested by the joint family, then, in such a case, the question whether the karta or a member of the joint family rendered some services may not assume importance. Where, however, there is no connection between the investment of the funds by the family and the remuneration paid to the karta or a member of the family, it is not possible to consider the remuneration received by the karta or the member of the family as the income of the joint family. As observed by the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Singh Hukam Chandji v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 33, it is essentially a remuneration for the services rendered by a coparcener. The circumstance that his services were availed of because of the reason that he was a member of the family which had invested funds in that business or that he had obtained the qualification shares from out of the family funds would not make the receipt, the income of the Hindu undivided family.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs P.S. Jain Motor Co. on 21 December, 1979

26. Thus, amongst the various tests to be kept in view one pertaining to the detriment of the family funds cannot be lightly ignored. What has to be further seen is whether the payment of the salary in substance though not in form was one of the modes of return of income to the family because of the investment of the family funds in the business or whether it was a compensation made for the services rendered by the individual coparcener. Although to a considerable extent as the facts brought out above bear out, there has been detriment to the family funds inasmuch as in spite of investment of about Rs. 2 1/3 lakhs, the return which the family got in three years has been Rs. 3,000 only, both the AAC and the Tribunal have come to the view that the salary amounts paid to the karta were not essentially on account of those investments but for the individual services he rendered. They have mainly placed reliance upon the decision in Raj Kumar Singh Hukam Chandji [1970] 78 ITR 33 (SC).
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Bipinbhai Vadilal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I on 6 March, 1980

26. In this state of the record, we are afraid, we cannot agree with the first limb of the contention of the learned advocate for the assessee that there was no concession made in fact as recorded by the Division Bench. If the concession was made, and we are in no doubt that such a concession was made having regard to what we have set out above, there is no scope for pressing in service the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna Iyer's case [1969] 73 ITR 539 (SC) or Raj Kumar Singh Hukam Chandji's case [1970] 78 ITR 33. We must, therefore, reject the first limb of his contention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Atma Ram Budhia on 10 January, 1984

30. Hon'ble Krishna Iyer J. was, however, not considering a case of a karta of an HUF holding a salaried post in the firm in which the HUF was a partner. None of the cases decided by the Supreme Court laying down the law in regard to the remuneration paid to a member of the HUF for the services rendered by him to the firm of which the family is a partner were referred to or even casually adverted to by him (Hon'ble Krishna Iyer J.) as, obviously, the question for consideration in the case before him was completely different. The view taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of Raj Kumar Singh Hukam Chandji v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 33, Prem Nath v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 319, CIT v. Gurunath V. Dhakappa [1969] 72 ITR 192, V.D. Dhanwatey v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 365 and CIT v. D.C. Shah [1969] 73 ITR 692, are all authorities being judgments of the Supreme Court of India for the principle that in the absence of any evidence that the remuneration agreed to be paid was not for services rendered to the firm but was a profit in lieu of the investment of the family funds in the business, the irresistible conclusion will be that the salary/remuneration paid to an individual member of the family was not the income of the family, but was in consideration of the contract of service and by way of compensation for services rendered by him.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Bipinbhai Vadilal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 6 March, 1980

In this state of the record, we are afraid, we cannot agree with the first limb of the contention of the learned advocate for the assessee that there was no concession made in fact as recorded by the Division Bench. If the concession was made, and we are in no doubt that such a concession was made having regard to what we have set out above, there is no scope for pressing in service the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna Iyers case [1969] 73 ITR 539 (SC) or Raj Kumar Singh Hukam Chandjis case [1970] 78 ITR 33. We must, therefore, reject the first limb of his contention.
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next