Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.66 seconds)Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay on 4 May, 1950
The word "earned" even though it does not appear in section
4 of the Act has been very often used in the course of the
judgments by learned Judges both in the High Courts as well
as the Supreme Court. (Vide Commissioner of Income-tax,
Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay(6), and
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. K. R. M. T. T.
Thiagaraja Chetty & Co.(7).
Indian Companies Act, 1913
Re Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co. vs Secretary Of State For India on 28 May, 1924
by' the person to be charged, that limitation would apply as
much to all Her Majesty's subjects as to foreigners residing
in this country. The result' would be that no income-tax
would be payable upon profits 'which accrued but which were
not actually received, although profits might have been
earned in the kingdom and might have accrued in the kingdom.
I think, therefore, that the words I arising or accruing are
general words descriptive of a right to receive profits."
To the same effect are the observations of Satyanarayana Rao
J. in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Anamallais
Timber Trust Ltd.(1) and Mukherjea J. in Commissioner of
Income-tax, Bombay v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co., Bombay(2)
where this passage from the judgment of Mukerji J. in Roqers
Pyatt Shellac & Co. v. Secretary of State for India(3), is
approved and adopted. It is clear therefore that income may
accrue to an assesee without the actual receipt of the same.
If the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the
income can be said to have accrued to him though it may be
received later on its being ascertained. The basic
conception is that he must have acquired a right to receive
the income. There must be a debt owed to him by somebody.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs K. R. M. T. T. Thiagaraja Chetty & Co on 14 October, 1953
"The quantification of the commission is not a condition
precedent to' its accrual." (Per Ghulam Hassan J., in
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. K. B. M. T. T.
Thiagaraja Chetty and Co.(1).