Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Rajniti Prasad Singh And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 November, 1929

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shyam Narain Mehrotra on 7 February, 1978

In the case of Rajnit Prasad Singh v. CIT [1929] 4 ITC 264 (Pat) [FB] at page 278, Mr. Justice Das quoting the aforesaid observations stated that though there was a presumption that the same sum should not be assessed twice on the same person yet there was no presumption that because a person has been assessed under the one statute, he was immune from taxation under another statute. Therefore, the fact that the assessee had suffered taxation under the G.T. Act, 1958, in respect of the transaction in question, does not, in our opinion, affect the question though we agree with the Tribunal that it causes a certain amount of hardship and perhaps in an appropriate case it may be that the Legislature should give some relief, as has been done in the case of the Estate Duty Act under Sections 50A and 50B of the said Act and other Acts.
Calcutta High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 8 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Baijnath Prasad And Ors. vs Jang Bahadur Singh And Anr. on 26 November, 1954

7. 'In -- 'Rajniti Prasad v. Commissioner of Income-tax, B. & O.', AIR 1930 Pat 33 (B), a Special Bench of this Court had to decide whether the usufructuary mortgage deed in respect of their proprietary interest in some villages executed by the mortgagors and a lease back of the same villages in favour of the mortgagors formed parts of one and the same transaction and whether the 'rent' payable by the mortgagors was assessable to income-tax. Their Lordships held that the documents formed parts of the same transaction and that) the amount payable by the mortgagors to the mortgagee was 'interest' on the mortgage money, though it was described as 'rent'.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Keshavlal Tribhovan Doshi vs Maganlal Shivram Adhyaru on 11 August, 1933

But, I think, that there is some force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that if the mortgage deed and the rent-note which was executed on the same day are read together, the transaction as a whole might be regarded as a simple mortgage. The mortgagor in this case transferred all the property to the mortgagee to secure the amount of the loan but by a contemporaneous agreement the property was leased by the mortgagee to the mortgagor. The mortgage deed stipulated that the mortgagor was responsible for the payment of Government assessment on the property. We have been referred to the view taken by the Patna High Court in the case of Rajniti Prasad Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa (1929) I.L.R. 9 Pat. 194 S.B., in which it was held under somewhat similar circumstances that Where a borrower, to secure a loan of a large sum of money, executed what purported to be a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the lender, who by a contemporaneous document leased the properties back to the mortgagor, the transaction amounted in effect to a simple mortgage.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

C. T. Narayanan Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 7 April, 1965

In deoniti Prasad Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1947] 15 I.T.R. 165. was considered a case of a zamindar who took bonds and promissory notes form his tenants in lien of arrears of agricultural rents. The assessee zamindar was also a money-lender. In the relevant year, the department disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of such debts as had become bad and irrecoverable. It was found that in the past years the department has treated the bonds and promissory notes as investments of the assessees money-lending business and had taxed the accrued interest under money-lending. The learned judges of the Patna High Court observe thus at page 174 :
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1