Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)Section 22 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Section 26 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
K. I. Viswambharan & Brothers And Other vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 17 August, 1972
In K. I. Viswambharan & Brothers v. CIT [1973] 91 ITR 588, a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, while dealing with the case of a firm that was comprised of two brothers as partners and had purchased a house in 1960 which it sold in 1966, opined (p. 592) :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs R.M. Chidambaram Pillai Etc on 17 November, 1976
29. The case of CIT v. R. M. Chidambaram Pillai [1977] 106 ITR 292(SC), relied on by the assessed, is in a different context. The controversy therein was whether the salary paid to a partner was a different label for profits, thus entitling it to be partly exempt as agricultural income. Holding that the salary of a partner represented a special share of profits and retained the same character as the income of the firm, the Supreme Court opined that it was exempt under r. 24 of the Indian I.T. Rules, 1922, to the extent of 60% thereof representing agricultural income. In coming to this conclusion it observed that a contract of employment required two distinct persons, viz., the employer and the employee, and there could be no contract of service between a firm and one of its partners, as a firm was only an expression for the persons who had agreed to carry on business in partnership. Krishna Iyer J., speaking for the court, observed that, though for the purposes of the I.T. Act, a firm had certain attributes simulative of personality, yet it was not a person but a plurality of persons.
Dulichand Lakshminarayan vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Nagpur on 17 February, 1956
After quoting from the case of Dulichand Laxminarayan v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 535, the Supreme Court noticed that the view taken therein accorded with the view in Addanki Narayanappa's case, .