Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.46 seconds)
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Memo Devi on 13 May, 1977 cites

Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Bombay vs Smt. Indira Balkrishna on 14 April, 1960

As observed by the Supreme Court in Income-tax Commissioner v. Smt. Indira Balakrishna (supra) and G. Murugesan v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra), in the absence of any "act which has helped to produce income" or "any act of joint management" "which produced or helped to produce income", and even if the fact was that the five persons merely jointly owned and jointly received the compensation amount, it is difficult to draw an inference from that fact that they constituted an "association of persons". So far .as the Government was concerned, it was liable in law to pay the amount to only the three persons in whose names the land was entered in the. revenue records, and there was no question of all the five persons Realizing it from the Government. This is also supported by the fact that the said three persons denied the right of Harish Chandra to a share in the suit filed by Smt. Memo Devi, which shows that the three persons were claiming to act individually, denying jointness. So, the argument of the learned counsel that the five persons should be held to have formed an "association of persons" for Realizing the compensation amount together cannot be accepted as correct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 209 - S K Das - Full Document

Kumar Taranand Sinha vs State Of Bihar. on 11 August, 1959

The five persons, who were members of the association, now extinct, could at the most be regarded as co-sharers, and each of them had a proportionate share in it. Even so, as pointed out by Ramaswami C.J. (as his Lordship then was) in Kumar Taranand Sinha v. State of Bihar, 40 I.T.R. 460, 468(2), "it is well established that in order to constitute an association of indiviuals there must be present not merely co-ownership but other indicia of joint enterprise are necessary. To put it differently, there must be a combination of persons for the promotion of a joint enterprise bounded together as co-adventurers".
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

K.P.G.B.U.G.M.S.S.A. Mohamad Abdul ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 August, 1948

(32) Mr. Shankar Vaidyalingam next referred us to the decisions in Mohammed Abdul Kareem & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 16 I.T.R. 412, 416(10) ; Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 29 I.T.R. 535, 541(11) ; and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krishna Reddy, 46 I.T.R. 784, 788(12). In the first of them, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras held that although the alleged partnership was an unlawful one, the assessed could be regarded on the facts of the case as "an association of persons" and assessed as such. In the second case, the Supreme Court held that "a firm is not an entity or "person" in law but is merely an association of individuals and a firm name is only a collective name of those individuals who constitute the firm. In the third case, a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the assessed partnership being in contravention of law was void, but, as the partners had joined with the common purpose of earning profits, they were assessable as "an association of persons" on the profits made. These decisions are not of assistance to the learned counsel, as on the facts of the present case we have pointed out earlier that whether it was initially a partnership firm or an association of persons, it ceased to be such on the acquisition of the entire land in 1948.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

Dulichand Lakshminarayan vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Nagpur on 17 February, 1956

(32) Mr. Shankar Vaidyalingam next referred us to the decisions in Mohammed Abdul Kareem & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 16 I.T.R. 412, 416(10) ; Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 29 I.T.R. 535, 541(11) ; and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krishna Reddy, 46 I.T.R. 784, 788(12). In the first of them, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras held that although the alleged partnership was an unlawful one, the assessed could be regarded on the facts of the case as "an association of persons" and assessed as such. In the second case, the Supreme Court held that "a firm is not an entity or "person" in law but is merely an association of individuals and a firm name is only a collective name of those individuals who constitute the firm. In the third case, a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the assessed partnership being in contravention of law was void, but, as the partners had joined with the common purpose of earning profits, they were assessable as "an association of persons" on the profits made. These decisions are not of assistance to the learned counsel, as on the facts of the present case we have pointed out earlier that whether it was initially a partnership firm or an association of persons, it ceased to be such on the acquisition of the entire land in 1948.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 220 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Krishna Reddy. on 17 January, 1962

(32) Mr. Shankar Vaidyalingam next referred us to the decisions in Mohammed Abdul Kareem & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 16 I.T.R. 412, 416(10) ; Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 29 I.T.R. 535, 541(11) ; and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krishna Reddy, 46 I.T.R. 784, 788(12). In the first of them, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras held that although the alleged partnership was an unlawful one, the assessed could be regarded on the facts of the case as "an association of persons" and assessed as such. In the second case, the Supreme Court held that "a firm is not an entity or "person" in law but is merely an association of individuals and a firm name is only a collective name of those individuals who constitute the firm. In the third case, a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the assessed partnership being in contravention of law was void, but, as the partners had joined with the common purpose of earning profits, they were assessable as "an association of persons" on the profits made. These decisions are not of assistance to the learned counsel, as on the facts of the present case we have pointed out earlier that whether it was initially a partnership firm or an association of persons, it ceased to be such on the acquisition of the entire land in 1948.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Punjab vs The Lahore Electric Supply Co on 25 November, 1965

(33) On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the assessed, referred to certain observations of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v, Lahore Electric Supply Co., . In that case, Sarkar, J. observed in paragraph 8 that: "IT would be laying down strange law to hold that where a business has in fact ceased to be run, it must be deemed as continuing because the outstanding liabilities of that business had not been liquidated."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 58 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 15 October, 1967

(36) The second point for consideration is as to whether the compensation amount received by the three persons could be said to be income that accrued or arose to the assessed consisting of the five persons. The test is whether a debt had been created in favor of the assessed. A debt is created when a right to receive is created (vide E. D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. I. T. C. Bombay, 1954 Supreme Court 470, 482 S.C.(I). In the present case, no doubt, at the time of the acquisition, the five persons had interest in the land by virtue of the arrangement between them. But, so far as the Government was concerned, the land was acquired as belonging to only the three persons whose names were entered in the revenue records. The compensation amount was payable by the Government to and it was common ground before us that it was in fact paid in January and March, 1952, only to the three persons. Only the three persons had the right to receive the compensation amount from the Government. The five persons together had no right to claim or receive the compensation amount from the Government. Therefore, a debt could be said to have been created and the compensation amount could be said to have accrued only to the said three persons. It has to be remembered that we have held earlier that the association of five persons ceased to subsist on acquisition in 1948. It has also to be borne in mind that the three persons denied the right of Harishhandra to a share in the suit filed by Smt. Memo Devi. Thus, at no time did the compensation amount accrue to the assessed consisting of the five persons.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next