Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Rajniti Prasad Singh And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 November, 1929
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 :
S.P.A.V. An. Kannappa Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 October, 1963
That the mode of treatment is of importance in construing the nature of the transaction has been indicated in two decisions of this court, to which one of us was a party : Kannappa Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1) [1962] 46 I.T.R. 576. and Murugappa Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2) [1962] 46 I.T.R. 797. In the present case, the mode of treatment is abundantly clear, in that the interest incomes on these advances were submitted to assessment as income from the money-lending business in the past years and accepted as such by the department. We are accordingly satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that this sum of Rs. 78,974 cannot be allowed as a deduction under section 10(2)(xi) of the Act.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Sri Talupuru Venkatasubbiah Chetty. on 23 November, 1945
It appears from these clauses, therefore, that out of the sum of Rs. 75,557 payable by the continuing partner to the assessee, the latter gave up Rs. 19,057. In respect of the balance of Rs. 56,500 the continuing partner undertook to discharge certain liabilities, which presumably the assessee would otherwise have had to discharge. The agreement resulted in the continuing partner having to pay a sum of Rs. 23,500 to the assessee and in respect of this amount he executed a promissory note. The assessees contention is that this asset was taken over by its money-lending business and since it realised only a sum of Rs. 11,000 and odd and the balance of Rs. 12,000 became irrecoverable, it is entitled to write off this sum under section 10(2)(xi), and in support of the claim in this regard Mr. Narayanaswami, learned counsel for the assessee, relied upon a decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Venkatasubbiah Chetty (1) [1946] 14 I.T.R. 227. In that case, the assessee, a Hindu undivided family, was carrying on a money-lending business. It had earlier carried on a separate money-lending business in partnership with another person. That was dissolved and the family received as part of its share certain promissory notes executed by persons to whom the partnership had lent moneys. These debts were taken over by the money-lending concern of the family and entered in its books and the promissory notes were being renewed from time to time. The interest received by the family on these promissory notes had been included in the profits and assessed to income-tax. When the assessee wrote off as irrecoverable three debts, the department disallowed the claim under section 10(2)(xi). On a reference, this court held :
Section 48 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Mr. L. Murugappa Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 4 March, 1961
That the mode of treatment is of importance in construing the nature of the transaction has been indicated in two decisions of this court, to which one of us was a party : Kannappa Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1) [1962] 46 I.T.R. 576. and Murugappa Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2) [1962] 46 I.T.R. 797. In the present case, the mode of treatment is abundantly clear, in that the interest incomes on these advances were submitted to assessment as income from the money-lending business in the past years and accepted as such by the department. We are accordingly satisfied that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that this sum of Rs. 78,974 cannot be allowed as a deduction under section 10(2)(xi) of the Act.
1