Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 161 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.P.-Ii, ... vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar Factory ... on 6 May, 1988
Further each of these trusts has an establishment and they have been incurring expenditure for running that establishment also. Each of these trusts has got its own registered office and business premises of its own. Therefore, all these elements should exist only in a case where there is an organised business activity. No doubt it is argued that it is the true nature and quality of the receipt and not the head under which it is entered which would prove decisive and if a receipt is a trade receipt the fact that it is not shown in the account books of the assessee would not prevent the assessing authority from treating it as a trade receipt and vice versa and in support of this proposition, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 321 38 Taxman 195 at page 329 is cited. No doubt, the Supreme Court's decision clearly supports this contention of the assessee. This Tribunal is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. But unfortunately the decision does not help the assessee at all. In view of the finding of fact recorded by this Tribunal that these assessees have been carrying on money-lending business in an organised and systematic manner with a set purpose of earning interest income, this Tribunal holds that not only the assessee has been earning interest income in the course of its money-lending business but it has also been showing it correctly under the head business in its accounts and, therefore, it cannot be said that the interest income was entered under wrong head of 'business' and there are no grounds to hold that the interest income falls under the head 'other sources'. The Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Development (P.)
Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992
Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 470 [1980] 4 Taxman 58 explained the connotation of business as follows as per the headnote:
Section 80L in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Additional Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Gurjargravures Private Limited on 8 November, 1977
4. After hearing both sides, this Tribunal is of the view that rejection of the additional ground raised on behalf of the assessee before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) following Gurjargravures (P.I Ltd.'s case (supra) can no longer be justified in view of the later decision of the Supreme Court in Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 85. In para 6 of the judgment their Lordships had distinguished Gurjargravures (P.)
Section 164A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Jute Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr on 4 September, 1990
Ltd.'s case (supra) as in our opinion that decision is founded on the special facts of the case, as would appear from the following observations made by the Court: ... As we have pointed out earlier, the statement of case drawn up by the Tribunal does not mention that there was any material on record to sustain the claim for exemption which was made for the first time before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We are not here called upon to consider a ease where the assessee failed to make a claim though there was no evidence on record to support it, or a case where a claim was made but no evidence or insufficient evidence was adduced in support. In the present case neither any claim was made before the Income-tax Officer, nor was there any material on record supporting such a claim.
Sitaratnam Family Trust vs Income-Tax Officer on 27 February, 1987
In fact, the point involved in these appeals was never considered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal now reported in Sitaratnam Family Trust's case (supra) and, therefore, the plea of the assessee that following Sitaratnam Family Trust's case (supra), ordinary rates should be applied to the incomes returned was not accepted and their plea was rejected in that regard. For the first time, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) pointed out that a plea was raised before him by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the assessee did not carry on any money-lending business and since no business was carried on, the income earned does not fall under the head 'Income from other sources' and if no business was carried on by a Trust, the application of maximum marginal rate should be set aside and the application of ordinary rates of tax to the returned income should be ordered in the case of each of these assessees. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed this contention also holding that it was never raised in the course of assessment proceedings nor could the claim be supported by any relevant material on record inasmuch as, the return together with computation of total income furnished by the assessee clearly declared the source as 'income from own business' (money-lending) barring an amount of Rs. 6,014 in the case of Vijaya Family Trust from bank interest and dividends which was exempt under Section 80L, having been shown under the head 'Other sources'. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) applied the principles of the Supreme Court's judgment in Addl.
1