Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bihar & ... vs Rani Prayag Kumari Debi. on 26 September, 1939
In accepting the assessees contention that this sum represented damages for the wrongful detention of the principal, the Tribunal relied on two cases, Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa v. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi and Behari Lal Bhargava v. Commissioner of Income-tax In our judgment, these cases are not in point, and in any event the correctness of the decision in the second case is open to doubt. The first case had reference to a sum which had been awarded to the assessee in a civil suit as damages for the wrongful detention of her movable property. The Patna High Court held that as the amount was decreed as damages, it was not a source of income within the contemplation of the Act. The second case was decided by the Allahabad High Court. There an amount awarded as compensation in land acquisition proceedings carried interest, and the question was whether the interest represented assessable income. The Allahabad High Court held that it did not, but with great respect we find ourselves unable to follow the reasoning. Certainly we are not prepared to accept the judgment as guide to the decisions in the present case.
Behari Lal Bhargava vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, C.P. And ... on 15 October, 1940
9. There is also the latest case reported in 1941 I.T.R., at page 9 in the case of Behari Lal Bhargava v. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. & U.P., where a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court decided that the interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was in the nature of compensation for the loss of the assessees fathers right to retain possession of the property acquired. It was held to be damages assessed in terms of interest for the loss of possession of property up to the date of the receipt of its consideration and it was held not to be an income and was not assessable to tax. In the case before us it cannot be said that this interest was income made in the course of business. It was not contractual interest but merely damages the measure of which was the amount awarded and though it may be called interest, as damages it is not liable to assessment.
Behari Lal Bhargava vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 October, 1940
In accepting the assessees contention that this sum represented damages for the wrongful detention of the principal, the Tribunal relied on two cases, Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa v. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi and Behari Lal Bhargava v. Commissioner of Income-tax In our judgment, these cases are not in point, and in any event the correctness of the decision in the second case is open to doubt. The first case had reference to a sum which had been awarded to the assessee in a civil suit as damages for the wrongful detention of her movable property. The Patna High Court held that as the amount was decreed as damages, it was not a source of income within the contemplation of the Act. The second case was decided by the Allahabad High Court. There an amount awarded as compensation in land acquisition proceedings carried interest, and the question was whether the interest represented assessable income. The Allahabad High Court held that it did not, but with great respect we find ourselves unable to follow the reasoning. Certainly we are not prepared to accept the judgment as guide to the decisions in the present case.
Section 3 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
L. C. T. S. P. Subramanyam Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras. on 18 September, 1935
6. The representative of the appellant who appeared before us this case relied on L. C. T. S. P. Subramanyam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, in support of the argument at the debt should be deemed to be discharged on the date on which he hundi was executed and not on the date on which it was cashed had also on V Income-tax Reports p. 534, the case of Ar. Pl. Sp. Manickam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. In V come-tax Reports at page 534 it was laid down that when the assessee accepted the jewels and took an assigned decree, the debt to the Penang business was completely discharged and the assets of their business were diminished by the amount the equivalent of which was taken in kind and there was a corresponding increase in the assessees assets in British India and that the transaction in the face of the facts of the case must be held to be a remittance into British India.
Section 28 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Ar. Pl. Sp. Manickam Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras. on 7 April, 1936
6. The representative of the appellant who appeared before us this case relied on L. C. T. S. P. Subramanyam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, in support of the argument at the debt should be deemed to be discharged on the date on which he hundi was executed and not on the date on which it was cashed had also on V Income-tax Reports p. 534, the case of Ar. Pl. Sp. Manickam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. In V come-tax Reports at page 534 it was laid down that when the assessee accepted the jewels and took an assigned decree, the debt to the Penang business was completely discharged and the assets of their business were diminished by the amount the equivalent of which was taken in kind and there was a corresponding increase in the assessees assets in British India and that the transaction in the face of the facts of the case must be held to be a remittance into British India.
1