Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Section 64 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 67 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Kakinada Annadana Samajam Etc vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & ... on 2 December, 1970
In coming to this conclusion, the Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Kakinada Annadana Samajam v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, AIR 1971 SC 891. The purport of this decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is that the office of the archakathvam itself is property.
The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987
Sri Mahant Prayag Doss Jee Varu And Ors. vs Archakam Bokkasam Govindacharlu And ... on 7 August, 1934
The Madras High Court in the case of Shri Mahant Prayag Doss Jee Varu (supra) had held in respect of the very temple (Shri Padmavathi Ammavari Temple) that archaka Mirasi in the Padmavathi Temple was hereditary. Certain disputes had arisen in settlement of hereditary rights of one of the archakas, Shri Krishnamacharyulu, who had executed a will, authorising his wife to adopt a male to bequeath a moiety of his half share to the son to be adopted and bequeathed the other half share to his son Shri Narasimhacharyulu. This settlement was disputed. The Madras High Court observed as under:
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sri Archakam Peddinti Srinivasamurthy ... vs The Commissioner, Charitable And Hindu ... on 8 September, 1971
It is for this purpose, the devasthanam authorities insist upon the khararnama. In other words, the agreement is not the sole source of income but it merely recogises the pre-existing right of the assessee to be an archaka in his turn. The right to the office of archaka is distinct from his consent to carry out the obligations of the office to which he is entitled. Any attempt even to reduce the rights of these hereditary priests was not upheld by the Courts, as in the case of Sri Archakam Peddinti Srinivasamurthy Dikshitulu v. Commissioner, Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments in Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad AIR 1973 AP 325 notwithstanding a specific provision in the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 to fix his share. The High Court observed that the rights, honours, emoluments and perquisites were prescribed by long custom and usage.
Joint Family Of Udayan Chinubhai Etc vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 14 October, 1966
4. The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessment suffers even for lack of jurisdiction, though on this point the first appellate authority has decided against him. He claimed that he had not come in appeal or in cross-objection, because he was otherwise satisfied with the relief in respect of quantum granted by the first appellate authority. Since objection against jurisdiction was taken up by him specifically and decided against him, he canvassed the claim that it was open to him to question the jurisdiction even while defending the decision of the first appellate authority. He claimed that once a partition was accepted, it is no longer open to the ITO to go behind the same. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT [1967] 63 1TR 416 and the Orissa High Court decision in Damodar Hansraj v. ITO [1971] 82 ITR 83. He also claimed that there has been a firm constituted in consequence of partition and that such firm had also been assessed in respect of the self-same income. He was of the view that the partner's assessment should follow the firm and it was not possible for the ITO to ignore the decision taken in the firm's assessment. As for the merits, he contended that the facts are very clear. He took us over the lengthy order of the first appellate authority for the inference that right to archakathvam was property. It was also hereditary property. He depended upon the various cases cited by the ITO himself for his view that it was property. It was heritable property. It was found to be alienable to the other family members. Since it was hereditary property, it was a family property. If it were family property, it was capable of division. Such division has also been recognised. It was also found that it was alienable to family members. It has been so specifically decided in some of the decisions cited by him and referred to by the first appellate authority. Here also, there has been no right conferred on a stranger whether consequent on partition or partnership. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in the departmental appeal, which should be rejected both on the question of jurisdiction as well as merits.