Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.29 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A. Tosh & Sons (P.) Ltd. on 9 September, 1986 cites

Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 March, 1932

This decision was cited as in that judgment, a number of reported decisions on the question of diversion of income by overriding title starting from Raja Bijoy Singh Dudhuria v. CIT [1933] 1 ITR 1 35 (PC) Raja Bijoy Singh Dudhuria v. CIT [1933] 1 ITR 1 35 (PC) were considered. Learned advocate for the assessee contended on the other hand that on a proper construction of the agreements between the assessee and its foreign buyers, it would be apparent that the amounts of excise duty rebate and customs duty drawbacks at no time became or could be deemed to be the income of the assessee. Under the said agreements, the assessee could only collect and receive the amounts of rebate and drawback on behalf of its foreign buyers and it was specifically provided in the agreements that the same would be refunded to the foreign buyers after the permission of the Reserve Bank was obtained. The said amounts, it was contended, were diverted at source by an overriding title in favour of the foreign buyers who owned the said amounts under the agreements.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 127 - Full Document

Seth Motilal Manekchand vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 11 February, 1957

(a) Seth Motilal Manekchand v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 735 (Bom). In this case, in a partition between three members of a Hindu joint family, a managing agency belonging to the family was also divided. The partition provided that two of the members would be entitled to the managing agency remuneration in equal shares but each of them would pay to the third member a specified part of their share of such remuneration. The members carried on the managing agency thereafter as a registered partnership.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Ratilal B. Daftari vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 30 September, 1958

(b) Ratilal B. Daftari v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 18 (Bom). In this case, the assessee was a partner in a registered partnership and had contributed a share in the capital of the partnership. The assessee had entered into an agreement with four other persons under which the assessee along with the said four persons had contributed diverse sums aggregating to the capital contributed in the partnership by the assessee and they had agreed to share the profits and losses in proportion to their individual contributions.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 19 April, 1965

(c) Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT . In this case, the assessee carried on the business of distribution of electricity under a licence from the Government. The licence was issued under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Under the statute, if the clear profit of the licensee in any year of account exceeded the amount of reasonable return, one-third of such excess not exceeding seven and half per cent. of the amount of the prescribed reasonable return was at the disposal of the licensee and one-half of such excess had to be either distributed by way of proportionate rebate to the consumers on amounts collected from sale of electricity or carried forward in the accounts of the licensee for distribution to the consumers in future in such manner as the State Government might direct. In the relevant accounting years, the assessee had credited amounts to the consumers' benefit reserve account as excess distributable to the consumers. The assessee claimed deduction of the sums in the computation of its taxable profits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 253 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala, ... vs Travancore Sugar & Chemicals Ltd on 27 October, 1972

(e) CIT v. Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. . In this case, the assessee entered into an agreement with the Government of Travancore whereby the assets of a sugar company controlled by the Government as also of a distillery and tincture factory run by the Government were agreed to be sold to the assessee. Apart from the cash consideration, the assessee was entitled to have the licence of the distillery transferred to it and also the promise of the Government for grant of a fresh licence for a five-year term thereafter. The assessee was required to sell the products of the distillery to the Government at a price to be fixed by the latter and also the medical products at stipulated prices. The Government, it was agreed, was further entitled to 20% of the annual net profits of the assessee subject to a maximum of Rs. 40,000 after providing for depreciation and remuneration of the secretaries and treasurers. This clause was subsequently amended and it was provided that the Government would be entitled to 10% of the annual net profits, i.e., the net amount for which the assessee's audited profits would be assessed to income-tax. The question arose whether the amount payable to the Government was liable to deduction under Section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 102 - P J Reddy - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Crawford Bayley & Co. on 14 March, 1976

(f) CIT v. Crawford Bayley & Co. [1977] 106 ITR 884 (Bom). The assessee in this case was a partnership firm constituted under a deed. On the death of one of the partners, a new partnership deed was executed. On the death of another partner, a supplementary deed was executed subsequently. The first two deeds provided for certain payments to the widows of the deceased partners. Payments were made accordingly and in the assessment years involved, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of such payments. On these facts, it was held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on a reference that the rule of diversion of income by an overriding charge was applicable in the case. It was held that the payments to the widows were not dependent upon the profits and losses of the assessee but were absolute obligations and had to be honoured even though there might not be any profits made by the assessee in any particular year. This absolute obligation was in the nature of an enforceable trust. This was not a case where the obligation arose to make payment out of the income after it was earned. It was held that the deductions claimed by the assessee were allowable.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 53 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal vs Tollygunge Club Ltd on 15 March, 1977

(g) CIT v. Tollygunge Club Ltd. [1911] 107 ITR 776 (SC). In this case, the assessee, a club, conducted horse races and charged fees for admission to the enclosure of the club. In the assessment years involved, the assessee levied surcharge on the admission fees under a resolution which provided that the proceeds of the surcharge would go to the Indian Red Cross. Subsequently, it was resolved further that the proceeds of the surcharge should be earmarked not only for the Indian Red Cross but also for local charities. A separate receipt used to be issued in respect of the surcharge collected. The question arose whether the surcharge received by the assessee was to be treated as a part of the assessee's taxable income.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 62 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central) ... vs Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Hathras., ... on 7 November, 1978

The Supreme Court further held that the fact that the payment of dharmada was compulsory, that the assessee had discretion as regards the manner and the time when the amount collected on such account would be spent and that the assessee did not keep the amounts collected in a separate bank account would not lead to the inference that the assessee had no obligation to utilise the amounts exclusively for charitable purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 185 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P.) Ltd. on 27 July, 1978

(i) CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. . The assessee in this case acted as a del credere agent of the collieries and arranged for sales of coal to the consumers. In cases where the collieries charged freight on a weight greater than the coal actually supplied, the assessee used to lodge claims with the said collieries for refund of the extra freight and collected the same. Where the consignees concerned claimed from the assessee such extra freight refunded, the same was paid by the assessee and where there was no such claim, the extra freight refunded remained in the account of the assessee. At the end of every three years, the amounts collected by the assessee on account of refund of extra freight which were not claimed by the consignees were transferred to the profit and loss account of the assessee. On these facts, the question arose whether the said amounts accumulated in the accounts of the assessee were taxable in the hands of the assessee as its assessable income. On these facts, a Division Bench of this court held that the amounts collected on account of extra freight charged from the collieries had been received by the assessee as an agent and in a fiduciary capacity vis-a-vis the consignees. Such amounts did not constitute trading receipts. Accordingly, neither the surplus of the unpaid receipts nor the amounts transferred by the assessee to its profit and loss account could be assessed as income of the assessee.
Calcutta High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next