Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Travancore Rubber And Tea Co. Ltd. on 22 November, 1990 cites

Commr. Of Agrl. I.T. vs Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. on 30 August, 1968

5. The crux of the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal to hold that the said amount of Rs. 3,95,229 did not-constitute receipt by way of income in the hands of the assessee was that the business of the assessee consists in growing rubber trees and utilising the latex from the trees and not the sale of rubber trees, and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Commr. of Agrl. I.T. v. Kailas Rubber and Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 435, the sale of old and unyielding rubber trees would result in a capital receipt in the hands of the seller, and, in this background, amounts received by way of earnest money and advance towards the sale price to be adjusted as and when the contracts were concluded cannot be said to be amounts received by the assessee as trading receipts. At the time when the amounts were received, they were not trading receipts and the mere fact that, by a subsequent event, namely, by the breach of the contract, the assessee could appropriate the amount would not render the receipts as revenue receipts.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Raghuvanshi Mills, Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 7 December, 1960

7. Before us, counsel for the Revenue placed strong reliance on the following decisions and contended that the amounts received by way of earnest money and advance would be entered only in a suspense account when received and it could be carried forward to the regular account only when the purchaser did not carry out the terms of the contract. It is then, after the accrual, that the first receipt arose. In this case, the first receipt after the accrual of the income arose only when the intending purchaser did not carry out the terms of the contract. At that point of time, the said amount received by way of earnest money and advance forfeited, can only be a revenue receipt. Strong reliance was placed on the following decisions : B.M. Kamdar, In re [1946] 14 ITR 10 (Bom) at p. 39 ; Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 230, 242 (SC) ; Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345, 350 (SC) and Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 484, 488 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 79 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Meenakshinada Deikshtar vs Murugesa Nadar And Anr. on 18 October, 1968

10. As stated in Meenakshinada Deikshtar v. Murugesa Nadar, AIR 1970 Mad 391, paragraph 5, "earnest money" is not part of the price bargained for, but it is unambiguously money paid for the due performance of the contract. In Halsbury's Laws of England, volume 9, pages 459 and 460, paragraph 672, the difference between deposits and part payments has been dealt with as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Motor & General Finance Ltd. on 8 August, 1973

17. We may incidentally observe that the observations in Kanga and Palkhivala's "The Law and Practice of Income Tax", 8th Edition, volume 1, pages 123 and 197, as also the decisions in CIT v. Motor and General Finance Ltd. [1974] 94 ITR 582 (Delhi); CIT v. Surendra Overseas Ltd. [1982] 136 ITR 553 (Cal) ; CIT v. A.V.M. Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 355 (Mad) and CIT v. Balaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) contain useful discussion about some aspects of the matter that may fall for consideration.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A.V.M. Ltd. on 14 July, 1981

17. We may incidentally observe that the observations in Kanga and Palkhivala's "The Law and Practice of Income Tax", 8th Edition, volume 1, pages 123 and 197, as also the decisions in CIT v. Motor and General Finance Ltd. [1974] 94 ITR 582 (Delhi); CIT v. Surendra Overseas Ltd. [1982] 136 ITR 553 (Cal) ; CIT v. A.V.M. Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 355 (Mad) and CIT v. Balaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) contain useful discussion about some aspects of the matter that may fall for consideration.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Balaji Chitra Mandir on 23 March, 1984

17. We may incidentally observe that the observations in Kanga and Palkhivala's "The Law and Practice of Income Tax", 8th Edition, volume 1, pages 123 and 197, as also the decisions in CIT v. Motor and General Finance Ltd. [1974] 94 ITR 582 (Delhi); CIT v. Surendra Overseas Ltd. [1982] 136 ITR 553 (Cal) ; CIT v. A.V.M. Ltd. [1984] 146 ITR 355 (Mad) and CIT v. Balaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) contain useful discussion about some aspects of the matter that may fall for consideration.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - B P Reddy - Full Document

The Keshav Mills Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 8 February, 1965

7. Before us, counsel for the Revenue placed strong reliance on the following decisions and contended that the amounts received by way of earnest money and advance would be entered only in a suspense account when received and it could be carried forward to the regular account only when the purchaser did not carry out the terms of the contract. It is then, after the accrual, that the first receipt arose. In this case, the first receipt after the accrual of the income arose only when the intending purchaser did not carry out the terms of the contract. At that point of time, the said amount received by way of earnest money and advance forfeited, can only be a revenue receipt. Strong reliance was placed on the following decisions : B.M. Kamdar, In re [1946] 14 ITR 10 (Bom) at p. 39 ; Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 230, 242 (SC) ; Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345, 350 (SC) and Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 484, 488 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 386 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 Next