Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Bhim Chandra Ghosh on 16 March, 1956

Ganapati Panchayatan Sansthan Trust vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 19 April, 1991

CIT v. Bhim Chanda Ghosh applied its decision in CIT v. Pulin Behari Dey [1951] 20 ITR 314 and distinguished its decision in Panchanan Das v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 57, it is desirable to refer to the fact in Panchanan Das v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 57 and the manner in which that case was distinguished by the Calcutta High Court in its later decision in CIT v. Bhim Chandra Ghosh [1956] 30 ITR 46.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bankim Ch. Datta And Others vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta. on 10 December, 1964

Etymological the word "share" comes from the word "shear" which means a piece hewn out to cut or torn away. Following the etymological meaning and accepting the aforesaid dictionary meaning, in our opinion, in the context in which the word has been used in the first proviso to section 41(1), the word "shares" means and includes a specific, definite part or portion of the income of the property. But it seems to us that the answer to the question of law raised would really depend on the other aspect of the matter, namely, whether the specified amounts allotted to the beneficiaries are indeterminate or unknown. From the analysis of the relevant provisions of the deed of endowment as stated above, it appears that the fixed sum payable to the beneficiaries may be variable in different years indifferent situations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respective shares of the beneficiaries are determinate and known. Dr. Pal has referred to Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhim Chandra Ghosh and the Official Trustee of West Bengal v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Both there cases do not give material assistance inasmuch as they do not deal with the second part of the first proviso to section 41(1) and, as such, we do not intend to discuss them at length.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Official Trustee Of West Bengal (For The ... on 5 February, 1981

21. In this view of the matter, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, question No. 2 automatically follows in favour of the assessee. This conclusion is corroborated by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Bhim Chandra Ghosh [1956] 30 ITR 46.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Rai Saheb Seth Ghisalal Modi Family ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 July, 1983

12. The decisions in CWT v. Trustees of the Estate of V.R. Chetty and Brothers [1979J 120 ITR 329 (Mad), Shrivallabhdas Modani v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 673 (MP), CIT v. Bhim Chandra Ghosh [1956] 30 ITR 46 (Cal), Sri Sri Jyotishwari Kalimata v. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 703 (Pat), CIT v. Pulin Behari Dey [1951] 20 ITR 314 (Cal) and CIT v. Smt. Ashalata Devi [1951] 20 ITR 326 (Cal), relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee in support of his contention, are distinguishable on facts and it is not necessary to discuss them in detail. Our answer to question No. 3 is, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Pramod Chand Soni Trust vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 April, 1983

7. Re. question No. 2: The question referred to us by the Tribunal really does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the assessee-placed reliance upon the decisions in CIT v. Bhim Chandra Ghosh [1956] 30 ITR 46 (Cal) and CIT v. Pulin Behari Dey [1951] 20 ITR 314 (Cal). It was contended that as there were two beneficiaries under the trust, their interest in the trust property should be deemed to be equal. The Tribunal while distinguishing the aforesaid decisions observed that the decisions relied upon related to two deities whose requirements were equal and, therefore, their interest in the trust property may be treated as equal. But in the present case the requirement of the beneficiaries, who are the mother and the son and one of them being major and the other minor, were unequal and, therefore, it cannot be held that their interest in the trust property was equal. This really relates to a question of fact and not a question of law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1