Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.57 seconds)
Deloitte Haskins And Sells Llp,Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax , ... on 30 December, 2025 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mulla And Mulla And Craigie, Blunt And ... on 19 September, 1990

9.3. On a specific query to the Id. Counsel of the assessee in respect to the findings given in the case of Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe (Supra), ld. Counsel took the Bench through the decision and pointed out that Hon'ble' Court has dealt with the issue on identical set of facts by referring to the substantial questions of law. While answering the substantial questions of law, the Hon'ble Court noted that there was a legal obligation in terms of the deed of retirement to pay in a particular manner to the erstwhile partner in respect of realisation fees after their retirement. It was held to be an instance of the source of income being subject to an obligation. Thus, the outstanding fees paid to the retiring partners as per the terms of the deed of retirement were held not assessable as income of the firm. The Hon'ble Court by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sital Das Thirath Das [1961] 41 ITR 367 (SC) noted that the true teat for the application of the rule of diversion of income by overriding charge was whether the amount deducted in truth never reached the assessee as income. According to it, there is a difference between the amount which a person is obliged to apply out of his income and amount which by the nature of the obligation cannot be said to be a part of his income where as a result of the obligation income is diverted before it reaches the assessee which is deductable. Thus, the substantial question of law was answered in negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 14 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1   2 Next