Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 120 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay vs Chugandas And Co., Bombay on 29 July, 1964

Punjab State Industrial Development ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 April, 2006

But this proposition is not of universal application as is evident from the para quoted from the case of Chugandas & Co. (supra). The language and text of the section required to be considered have a bearing on the question when "business" is to be given commercial meaning or income is to be taken as computed under the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 179 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 7 April, 2006

In the case of CIT v. Chugandas & Co. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if an assessee carries on business of purchasing and selling buildings, the profits and gains earned by transaction in buildings will be shown under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", but income received from the buildings so long as they are owned by the assessee will be shown under the head "Income from house property".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 27 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. on 21 September, 2017

93. The relevant extract of aforesaid order has also been reproduced above. In the order question of stock in trade is not discussed. However, on the basis of ratio of decisions of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Chugandas & Co. 55 ITR 17, and in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corpn. P. Ltd. v.CIT 83 ITR 700, it held that income realized even when building was stock in trade was to be assessed under the head 'house property income'. The aforesaid finding in no way affects the claim of the Assessee that Scindia House property is stock in trade in the hands of the Assessee. If it is stock in trade, then it has to be treated as exempt under the Wealth Tax Act. We hold accordingly." (emphasis supplied)
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Laxmi Agents P. Ltd. on 20 December, 1975

In CIT v. Chugandas and Co. [1965] 55 ITR 17(SC), the question was whether the interest on securities formed part of the assessee's business income for the purpose of the exemption from tax under s. 25(3)of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. There the assessee-firm was a dealer in securities holding securities as its stock-in-trade and had been charged to tax under the Indian I.T. Act, 1918, in respect of business. The firm received Rs. 4,13,992 and Rs. 1,01,229 as interest on securities in the years 1946 and 1947, respectively. On June 30, 1947, the assessee-firm discontinued its business. In proceedings for assessment for 1947-48 and 1948-49, the said firm relied upon s. 25(3)of the Act of 1922, and claimed exemption of the plea that it was carrying on business before the Act of 1922 was enacted and on the business tax was charged under the provisions of the Act of 1918. The ITO held that interest earned by the firm on securities was liable to be assessed under s. 8 and not under s. 10 of the Act of 1922, and hence it was not entitled to the benefit of s. 25(3).This s. 25(3) was enacted because under the Act of 1918, tax was leviable on the income of the year of assessment, while under the Act of 1922, this basis was changed and by s. 3 of that Act charge was imposed on the income of the previous year. Therefore, with a view to make the number of assessments equal to the number of years during which the business was carried on, the Legislature enacted the exemption prescribed by s. 25(3).The question was whether this benefit was available to the assessee in the subsequent years. The court held that heads on income described in s. 6 of the Act of 1922, and further elaborated for the purposes of computation in ss. 7 to 10 and 12, 12A, 12AA and 12B were intended merely to indicate the classes of income. The business income, as observed by the court, was broken up under different heads only for the purpose of the computation of the total income and, therefore, by that breaking up, the income did not cease to be the income of the business, the different heads of income being only the classification prescribed by the Act for computation. Thus, the Supreme Court has in this case definitely held that the breaking up which is contemplated by the different heads of income is only for the purpose of computation of the total income and that being so, if a question arises for any purpose other than computation of total income, the court can look into the intrinsic nature of the income which is earned and can consider from the commercial point of view whether this income was earned for the business purpose or not.
Gujarat High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co. on 18 August, 1980

14. Therefore, in the light in which the Supreme Court has understood its previous decision in the case of CIT v. Chugandas & Co. [1965] 55 ITR 17, and in the light of the plain language used under Section 25(4), that is to say, me exemption given on the tax payable in respect of income, profits and gains for the period, we are of the opinion that the assessee, in the facts of this case, was entitled to relief even in respect of income from house property. The observation of the Supreme Court in the said decision that non-business income could not be included in the amount of income on which exemption was contemplated under Section 25(3), in our opinion, should be construed in the light of the entirety of the observation and in the background of the other observations made by the Supreme Court. In that light, it meant that the income which was not earned, though earned by the assessee in the year in a separate capacity, that is to say, in the capacity as a dealer in securities or as a house owner, was nothing which was inter-linked with the business. Indeed, in the case of a firm like this, the activity was the business activity and it must be entitled to the exemption.
Calcutta High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Udhna Udyognagar Sahakari Sangh Ltd.,, ... vs Assessee

14. Adverting now to ground no.1 in the appeal of the Revenue relating to an amount of Rs. 13,32,660/- assessed by the AO as income under the head 'Business or Profession', the AO noticed that the assessee reflected interest income of Rs.13,32,913/- under the head "Income from other sources". The amount comprised Rs.253/- on account of interest from SB Account, Rs.12,07,805/- on account of interest on FDRs with the banks and Rs.1,24,855/- on account of other interest. In response to the show cause notice, as to why this amount be not assessed as income from business or profession, the assessee vide letter dated 17-08-2007 replied that earning of interest is not business of the assessee while the interest paid on overdraft raised on assets was not at all linked up with the securities from which interest was generated. Relying upon the decision in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT 32 ITR 688, CIT vs. Chugandas 51 ITR 17 / 21 (SC) and CIT vs. National Bank 202 ITR 559, the assessee contended that since FDRs were not held as trading assets, nor the lending & borrowing was the business of the assessee, interest could not be assessed under the head "income from business and profession". However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee on the ground that in terms of point 5(f) of bye-laws of the society, the general funds of the society when not utilized in their business, were required to be invested or deposited as required by section 71 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1962. Since the society had kept FDRs in terms of provisions of section 71 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, and the assessee had obtained overdraft facilities against the said FDRs and utilized the same for running its day to day 14 ITA No.1215&2021/Ahd/08 activities, the interest income has to be assessed as income from business or profession. The AO further observed that the dominant purpose of parking idle funds in the form of FDRs was to carry on its business more efficiently and smoothly. Accordingly, the AO brought the entire amount of Rs.13,32,660/- to tax under the head "income from business or profession".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Bombay State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. on 10 February, 1965

11. It is argued by Mr. Joshi that having regard to the items included under the Explanation, it is evident that what is intended to be exempted are the profits from business and the word "profits" in clause (2), therefore, would only mean profits and gains of business computable under section 10. It must, however, be remembered that the profits from an activity, which is business, are not only profits, which are computable as profits and gains of business under section 10, but would also include other profits. As has been observed in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chugandas & Co. :
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... vs Shrikishan Chandmal. on 28 April, 1965

This was affirmed in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chugandas & Co. The Supreme Court considered the question at some length and took the view that the exemption granted to profits and gains from "business, profession or vocation" was not retracted to profits and gains assessable under section 10 of the Act. Shah. J., speaking for the court, further observed :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Snam Progetti S.P.A. vs Additional Commissioner Of ... on 12 February, 1981

In CIT v. Chugandas and Co. (1965) 55 ITR 17 (SC), the question before the court was whether the assessed was entitled to the benefit of s. 25(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, in respect of interest on securities. It was concluded that the section did not apply to non-business income. However, the securities, in this case were held to constitute the stock-in-trade of the business and, therefore, the income from securities was related as equivalent to business income.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next