Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.65 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs Port Canning And Land Improvement Co. ... on 14 February, 1966
cites
Karanpura Development Co., Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 31 August, 1961
He has argued that, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Karanpura Development Co.'s case, the salami receipts received by the assessee in the present case in respect of all the three classed is its income from business and not a capital receipt.
The Assam Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1939
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Member For The Board Of Agricultural ... vs Smt. Sindhurani Chaudhurani.(With ... on 24 April, 1957
These settlements of the company are in no way distinguishable from the settlements of the zamindars in Sindhurani's case. The only activity of the company in respect of these settled lands was to collect the annual rents from the tenants on whom the lands were settled. Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the revenue, has argued that it may be that in the case of these two classes perhaps the activities of the company may not be distinguishable from the activities of a landed proprietor. He has, however, argued that in the third class, from which the largest amount of salami has been received by the assessee, there is an element of trading in tenancy rights and, consequently, the amount of salami received from that class must be considered as income from business. What the learned counsel argues is that this amount of salami is received for settlement of the tenancy rights, which the assessee itself has purchased at a court auction. In other words, the activity of the assessee-company in this connection is to buy off tenancy rights at court auctions and thereafter dispose of the same tenancy rights in favour of tenants by charging salami to them.
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Kishan Prasad & Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab on 11 November, 1954
As has been observed by the Supreme Court in Kishan Prasad & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the circumstance whether a transaction is or is not within the competence of the company's power has no bearing on the nature of the transaction or on the question whether the profits arising therefrom are capital accretion or revenue income. The consideration of the objects of formation of the company would no doubt be relevant for the purpose of understanding the real nature of certain given activities of the company. But they are not conclusive of the same. What must, therefore, be found is whether on the activities actually indulged in by the assessee-company and the manner in which they have been carried on, they are activities of a business or trading nature, and the amounts received by it are in the course of and arising out of the said business activities. We have set out the activities of the assessee relating to the acquired lands and we find no distinction whatsoever between these activities of the assessee and the activities of a land-owner dealing in the land itself and collecting rents and profits. In the case of the first two classes, i.e., in the case of the non-agricultural land or in the case of the virgin land first settled on the tenants on acceptance of salami, the ownership of the land has not been parted by the company at all.
1