Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Sir S.M. Chitnavis on 26 April, 1932
In support of his argument, Mr. Joshi relied on the following observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Commissioner, of Income-tax v. S. M. Chitnavis .
Wallace Brothers And Co. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 February, 1948
11. It will be convenient to refer at this stage-to one or two decisions very strongly relied on by Mr. Joshi, Referring to tin; case of Wallace Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax , learned Counsel drew our attention to the proposition that liability to tax arises by virtue of the charging section alone and it arises not later than the close of the previous year but the quantification of the amount payable is postponed. This proposition has not been disputed by learned Counsel for the assessee company.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs K. R. M. T. T. Thiagaraja Chetty & Co on 14 October, 1953
12. Another case on which Mr. Joshi has placed reliance is Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. K.R.M.T.T. Thiagaraja Chetty & Co. and he has drawn our attention to the following observations at pp. 533-534 (of ITR: (at p. 530 of AIR):
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. on 1 October, 1958
Incidentally, we may observe that we ourselves pointed out in the case of the Commr. of Income-tax v. Shoorji Vallabhclas and Co. that the question whether the income accrued or not is not a mere matter of cogency of the entries made in the account books of the assessee but is essentially one of substance and of the real nature of what happened; a mere book entry is not conclusive of the question whether the assessee bad become entitled to the sums or not. It may also be mentioned that in that case we were dealing with an assessee. who followed the mercantile system of account. The crucial question before us, therefore, is whether the two facts -- one the amount of Hs. 1,17,644-4-0 which would have become payable to the managing company but for the surrender and the faclum of surrender are to be isolated or treated as of cogency in determining the actual accrual of income, by which we mean the real income of the assessee company. If the fact of forgoing or surrendering the amount of Rs. 57,000/-odd is to be regarded as of cogency in the context of the present point of real income and if it be remembered that the surrender was made at the time of ascertaining the quantum of the commission payable to the assessee company and further if it be remembered, as now found by the Tribunal, that the surrender was made kona fide and on grounds solely of commercial expediency, it seems very difficult to us to see how the Revenue is justified in contending that the real income of the assessee was something different than the amount of Rs. 20.000/- which was shown by it at the time of assessment as its income from managing agency commission. To accede to that suggestion would lead to a result highly unfair, though that is not a consideration which can be permitted to influence us in deciding any matter when we have to give effect to the provisions of a fiscal enactment. At the same time, we would not be justified in being unmindful of the consequences of any opinion which we may give on a Reference. The enquiry must depend mainly on the broad aspect and the fact and circumstances of the particular case and not on any wire-drawn technicality.
1