Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 26 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Bombay vs Smt. Indira Balkrishna on 14 April, 1960
The shares of the ladies are not definite and ascertainable in Delhi property The conclusion, therefore, is that they have to be assessed as an AOP in respect of that property. This was also the view taken by the Tribunal in, the case of S.K. Gupta [IT Appeal Nos. 760 to 762 (All.) of 1978-79, dated 24-1-1981] a copy of which was placed before us. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indira Balkrishna, [1960] 39 ITR 546 had held that the word 'associate' means 'to join in common purpose or to join in an action'. Therefore, 'AOP' as used in the Income-tax' Act, means an association in which two or more persons join in a common purpose or common action. These observations squarely fit in with the present case. The two ladies had joined in a common purpose or common action in acquiring Delhi property and, therefore, they formed an AOP in respect of that property.
A.M. Abdul Rahman Rowther And Co. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 15 December, 1964
The case of Sh. Abdul Rahman (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court also supports the stand of the assessee. It was held in this case that if the shares of the parties were not definite and ascertainable within the meaning of Section 9(3) of the 1922 Act, corresponding to Section 26 of the 1961 Act, then they were not entitled to have their shares of income separately assessed.
The Rajasthan Finance Act, 1961
Section 3 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Trustees Of Gordhandas Govindram ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central, ... on 15 February, 1968
18. In expressing our above view, we find agreement with the submissions of the counsel relating to the introduction of Section 21AA in the Act. It was precisely to meet such situations that this section has been introduced in the Act. It lays down that where assets chargeable to tax are held by an AOP and the individual shares of the members in the income or assets or both of the said associations are indeterminate or unknown, the wealth-tax shall be levied and recovered from such association in the manner laid down in that section.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Madras Cricket Club on 1 May, 1934
It that respect, the section will have application only to the acquiring of the plot in Delhi and not to the structure which was constructed by the ladies themselves and was not acquired for consideration. It is also by now well settled that, unlike the English law, the law in India recognises dual ownership, the land belonging t o one person and the structure upon it belonging to another--Sakarchand Chhaganlalv. CED [1969] 73 ITR 555 (Guj.) This was also the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. The Madras Cricket Club [1934] 2 ITR 209. It was held in this case that in order that a person may be assessed as the owner of a building under Section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it was not necessary that he should also be the owner of the land on which the building stands. The fact that the shares of the ladies could be held to be determinate in the land will, therefore, not be an impediment in our finding that their shares were indeterminate in the structure. Besides, as found by us. Rs. 33,697 had been invested by the ladies in the construction out of their own savings. The extent of the saving of each lady is not at all known in this amount. On these facts, we hold that the shares of both the ladies in Delhi property remained indeterminate.