Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 56 (0.79 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Lucy Kochuvareed vs P. Mariappa Gounder And Ors. on 7 February, 1979
In coming to the above conclusion, their Lordships followed the judgement of hon'ble Patna High Court in Rani Prayag Kumari Devi (supra), of hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. (supra), the judgement of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucy Kochuvareed v. P. Mariappa Gounder (supra) as well as in the case of Mahant Narain Dasjee Varu v. Tirumala Tirupati Devaathanam AIR (1965) SC 1231 and dissented from the judgement of hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Mariappa Gounder (SC).
Gopaldas Mohta vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, C. P. And ... on 30 December, 1949
59. Another contention of the Revenue is that the decision of hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Rani Prayag Kumari Devi (supra) has not been followed by the said court itself in subsequent cases viz., H.P. Banerjee v. CFT 19 ITR 596, CIT v. Kameshwar Singh 23 FTR 212 as well as by the hon'ble Nagpur High Court in the case of Gopaldas Mohta v. CIT 20 ITR 517. After going through the said decisions, we are unable to accept this contention of the Revenue. Nowhere in these judgements the courts had expressed any different opinion.
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dr. Shamlal Narula vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab on 9 April, 1964
54. The judgement of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Shamlal Najrula (supra) is quite distinguishable on facts. In that case, the interest under the Land Acquisition Act was awarded from the date of possession till the date of payment of compensation. Their Lordships observed that under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the ownership of land is vested in the Government the moment the possession is taken by the Govt. Thus the money by way of compensation becomes due on the date of possession taken by the Government and thus interest is for deprivation of use of use of money and therefore, character of such receipt is revenue in nature. After considering this judgement of hon'ble Supreme Court, the hon'ble Kerala High Court and hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the cases mentioned in the preceding paragraphs held that interest for the period up to the date of decree was capital in nature since till such date, the interest was by way of damages for deprivation of use and occupation of property.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Periyar And Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. on 9 December, 1971
58. The contention of the Revenue that the judgment of hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Periyar & Pareckanni- Rubbers Ltd. (supra) was not accepted by the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Vishnu Dayal Dwarkadas 123 ITR 140 (Bom.) is also without force. In that case, in pursuance of an agreement to sell, concluded on May 1, 1958, the assessee agreed to sell certain agricultural properties to one 'R' for a price of Rs. 2,28,442/-. Since the vendee was not in a position to pay the price it was agreed that assessee could carry out the agricultural operations on behalf of the vendee until the date of the execution of the sale deed. The assessor was also entitled to interest @ 6.75 per cent from May 1, 1958 till the execution of sale deed. The sale deed was executed on 25th January, 1959 when the entire sale price was paid along with interest of Rs. 15,083/-. The question arose whether such interest income could be taxed as revenue receipt. A contention was raised on behalf of the assessee before the High Court that such interest was in the nature of capital receipt in view of the hon'ble Kerala High Court judgment mentioned above. The court observed that facts in the case before the hon'ble Kerala High Court and the facts before them were different inasmuch as they were not concerned with the case dealing with the rights of the parties to receive the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. On the contrary, they were concerned with the mutual rights between the parties under the agreement of sale. Thus the judgment of hon'ble: Kerala High Court was distinguished by the hon'ble Bombay High Court and therefore it cannot be said that the hon'ble Bombay High Court did not accept the judgment of hon'ble Kerala High Court.
P. Mariappa Gounder (Dead) By Lrs. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 21 January, 1998
(1) That the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Mariappa Gounder (supra) was not concerned with the issue whether the mesne profit received against the wrongful possession of the property is in the nature of revenue receipt or capital receipt. The only issue before the court related to the year of taxability. Hence it cannot be said that the hon'ble Supreme Court adjudicated upon the issue relating to the nature and character of the receipt by way of mesne profits.
Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 May, 1965
17. The view taken by us is fortified by the decision of the apex court in the case of Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v. CIT 122 ITR 1. In that case assessee was the HUF which was the beneficial owner of certain shares in a private limited company called Shamsunder Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. However, these shares stood in the name of S.N. Saharia, Karta of the HUF, in the register of shareholders of the company. The said company advanced loan to three concerns run by the assessee HUF and the same was treated as deemed dividend in the hands of assessee HUF Under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (1922 Act) by the ITO for assessment years 19S5-56 and 1956-57. The order of the ITO was confirmed by AAC as well as the Tribunal. At the instance of the assessee six questions were referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of the High Court which inter-alia included the following question:
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
22. The learned senior DR, Mr. Gupta, has relied on the judgement of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala 245 ITR 360 for the proposition that where there is a dismissal of appeal by the apex court, the decision of the High Court is confirmed and the doctrine of merger applies. It is not necessary for us to adjudicate such contention in the present case since there was no appeal by the assessee against the opinion of the High Court expressed in the Reference Application at the instance of the assessee. As already mentioned by us in earlier part of the order that there were three Reference Applications before the High Court - one by the assessee and two by the Revenue. Only two appeals were filed before the apex court with reference to the opinion expressed by the High Court on the questions referred at the instance of the Revenue. Since no appeal was filed against the opinion expressed by the High Court on the question referred at the instance of the assessee, the question of applying the theory of merger does not arise.