Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs The Mercantile Bank Of India Limited on 20 May, 1936

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central, ... vs Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. on 12 September, 1959

In view of these judgments of the Supreme Court, it is not necessary for me to refer to or deal with the observations of the Bombay High Court in the case of Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and the remarks to a somewhat different effect of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. State Bank of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Kunjilal Gupta vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. on 17 January, 1964

There is absolutely nothing in these observations of their Lordships to give any support to the nexus or accretion theory. The question discussed before their Lordships was whether the bonus shares, and not proceeds of sale of bonus shares, allotted to a shareholder formed part of his revenue income or capital gain, which question does not arise before us in view of the categorical statement made by Sri Gopal Behari. The accretion theory, if there is any force in it, can apply only to bonus shares and not to proceeds of sale of bonus shares; it is only bonus shares that can be said to accrete to the original shares and proceeds of sale of bonus shares will be not accretion to the original shares but proceeds of sale of accretion. If, as held by the House of Lords, bonus shares do not accrete to the original shares proceeds of sale of bonus shares cannot be accretion. However, the observations of their Lordships must be read in the context of the fact that they dealt with an investor and not with a dealer in shares. In the case of an investor bonus shares are not to be included in his revenue income;p their Lordships did not decide anything about bonus shares received by dealer in shares. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council followed the decision in Blotts case in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mercantile Bank of India and held that when accumulated profits are issued as bonus debentures on the basis of preferred shares held by shareholders the issue of the debentures does not amount to income in the shareholders hands.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gopaldas Mohta vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, C. P. And ... on 30 December, 1949

In Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal v. Mercantile Bank of India, Ltd., the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, contended that the debentures issued to the trustees of the assessee Sir David Yule was income liable to tax. These debentures were issued in the "previous" year ending 31st March, 1931, and the amount secured by them were made repayable at the latest on the 31st December, 1940. These debentures were in fact all redeemed prior to the end of February, 1933. They were issued under the following circumstances :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Athi V. Ramachandra Chettiar. on 12 November, 1963

That is the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mercantile Bank of India. The facts of that case were as follow : An investment company was carrying on business in India and it capitalised its accumulated undistributed profits and issued to its shareholders bonus debentures, which were subsequently redeemed. It was held that the shareholders did not, as a result of those transactions, receive any taxable income, profits or gains within the meaning of section 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The personal motive or purpose of the individual shareholders, even though they held controlling interest in the company, was held to be irrelevant, if it was made out that the company had in fact capitalised the accumulated profits. The view of the Judicial Committee, therefore, was that undistributed profits of the company applied and appropriated for the issue of bonus shares would never become profits in the hands of the shareholder at all. The bonus share was held to be something in the nature of extra share certificate in the company. Indeed, this position, that bonus shares allotted to a shareholder would not represent taxable income in his hands, is conceded by learned counsel for the department.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs M/S. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal on 6 September, 1968

The principle of the case was affirmed by the Judicial Committee in a case arising under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal v. Mercantile Bank of India and Others(1). Accordingly bonus shares given by a Company in proportion to the holding of equity capital by a shareholder are, in the absence of any express provision to the contrary liable to be treated as capital and not income.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 84 - J C Shah - Full Document

Ajay Srivastava, New Delhi vs Assessee on 25 January, 2012

In this connection, the decision of Commissioners of Inland Revenue Vs. John Blott, (1921) 8 TC 101 and CIT Vs. Mercantile Bank of India (1936) 4 ITR 239 were referred to. From the details of the shares purchased and sold, to which we have already made a reference, it is found that the assessee has not received any bonus shares which have been sold in this year. Therefore, the ratio of this case is not applicable. Further, we find that the assessee has made substantial number of transactions not only in this year but subsequent two years also. Therefore, the facts are distinguishable. Thus, we have to decide the issue on the basis of the impression we get by looking at the dealings of the assessee and circumstances surrounding it. We find that an investor would not enter into purchase and sale transactions of shares of 52 companies and units of 10 mutual funds in a single year. The transactions are numerous and period of holding is small. Transactions of this 30 magnitude can be undertaken only after devoting substantial time to the study of movements in the market. Any one who undertakes such large number of transactions keeping the market conditions in view would obviously assume the character of a dealer. It may be mentioned here that dealing in a commodity can also be done with own funds. Past record in this connection is not material. As the assessee has not maintained books of account, therefore, the intention can be ascertained only from the conduct. When we look to the transactions as a whole, the impression we get is that he has dealt in shares and units and has not acted as investor in shares and units. Accordingly, it is held that the AO rightly taxed the surplus arising from the transactions under the head "profits and gains of business".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

L. Kunji Lal Gupta vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 January, 1964

The decision in Swan Brewery's case, 1914 AC 231 was distinguished by the House of Lords in Blott's case, 1921-8 Tax Cas 101 and by the Privy Council in Mercantile Bank's case 1936-4 ITR 239 : (AIR 1936 PC 238) (supra). The Judicial Committee in the latter case clearly stated that a case under the Indian Income-tax Act is covered by Blott's decision, 1921-8 Tax Cas 101 and not by Swan Brewery Company's decision 1914 AC 231.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next