Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.23 seconds)
Gopaldas Mohta vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, C. P. And ... on 30 December, 1949 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras vs Ct. Rm. N. Narayanan Chettiar. on 30 March, 1943

In Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Narayanan Chettiar, the facts were that on the death of a partner, leaving two minor sons, the other partner continued the business with the assets of the firm. The share of the deceased partner in the assets was ascertained but was not paid. On the sons attaining majority a panchayat was held to decide what interest should be paid on the amount found due to the deceased and the amount awarded was received by the assessee. It was sought to be assessed. It was held that the receipt was interest and not by way of damages for wrongful detention of money because in the eyes of equity that interest which the other partners must have earned or must be deemed to have earned by the use of the money of the assessee, rightfully belonged to the assessee. Under Section 37 of the Partnership Act the outgoing partner is entitled to a share of the subsequent profits earned with his capital or to interest at 6 per cent. per annum on his money. In either case it is income liable to tax. This case is analogous to the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bihar & ... on 27 August, 1946

In Kamakshya Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the question was whether royalty on coal mines is a capital receipt or income. It was there contended for the assessee that it was a price of coal extracted by the lessees at their cost and that such price is by its nature and quality capital and not income. The leases in that case provided for payment of a minimum royalty every year which was payable even if no coal was extracted. Their Lordships held that "royalties are periodical payments to be made by the lessee under his covenants in consideration of the various benefits which he is granted by the lessor,...... The actual acquisition of the property in a particular ton of coal at the moment when the lessee has cut and taken away the coal is only the final stage ...... The royalties are clearly not capital but income within the meaning of the Act, whatever may be the exact definition of that word in the Act". It is true that their Lordships held that the royalties cannot be regarded as profits or gains from business and that the source of royalty may properly be deemed to be the lessees covenant to pay it and hence royalty falls under "other source". Their Lordships observed that "income is not necessarily the recurrent return from a definite source though it is generally of that character....... The multiplicity of forms which income may assume is beyond enumeration". It is therefore not possible to have any scientific definition of income. This is evidently the reason why it is not defined in the Act.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 70 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs The Mercantile Bank Of India Limited on 20 May, 1936

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 :-
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bihar & ... vs Rani Prayag Kumari Debi. on 26 September, 1939

In Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa v. Ranik Prayag Kumari Debi, the assessee sued Raja Sheoprasad Singh for possession of an impartible estate known as "Jharia Raj" together with certain movables and for damages for their wrongful detention. These movables were claimed in the alternative as the self-acquisitions of the late Raja to which she was solely entitled and which the defendant had wrongfully taken and retained. It was ultimately held that the defendant was the rightful successor to the Raja, that the assessee was entitled to maintenance, that the movables in dispute were inherited by the assessee on the death of the late Raja, that the assessee was entitled to maintenance, that the movables in dispute were inherited by the assessee on the death of the late Raja, and that they were wrongfully detained by the defendant. As a result a decree was passed for the return of the movables and in the alternative for their value and for damages for wrongful detention of the movables. The decree was compromised and it was agreed that the repayments made should be appropriated towards the value of the movables and damages in the proportion of 6 to 10. The question arose whether the sum of Rs. 62,500 received in the relevant account year as damages was liable to tax. Their Lordships answered this question as under :-
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Behari Lal Bhargava vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 October, 1940

In Behari Lal Bhargava v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it was held "that the interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is compensation for the loss of the owners right to retain possession of the property acquired till full compensation is offered. In other words, it is damages assessed in terms of interest for loss of possession of the property up to the date of receipt of consideration".
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited vs Ruttanji Ramji on 20 December, 1937

In Bengal Nagpur Railway Co., Ltd. v. Ratanji Ramji, it has been held that in the absence of any usage or contract, express or implied, or of any provision of law to justify awarding of interest on the decretal amount for the period before the institution of the suit, interest for that period cannot be allowed by way of damages. It would thus appear that the receipt in dispute of interest payable under contract could not in any sense be by way of damages.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 256 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next