Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Shri Sitaldas Tirathdas on 24 November, 1960
12. It is also no doubt correct that if there is an overriding charge either upon the property or upon its income, then the result might be different as held by the Supreme Court in Sitaldas' case (supra). However, in our opinion there is no such overriding charge either upon the property of the firm or upon its income. Mere statement in Clauses 11 and 12, in our opinion, does not result in the creation of any such charge. The nature of such overriding charge will be clear from subsequent discussion of decided cases. In the present case, the partners of the assessee-firm themselves have described it as a charge on the income of the firm while, in fact, it does not amount to any such overriding charge.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs C.N. Patuck on 22 January, 1968
There are no such facts in the present case before us. It was also found by the Court that this case was expressly covered by the decision in Patuck's case (supra).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay ... vs Nariman B. Bharucha & Sons on 18 April, 1980
14. Similary the case of Nariman (supra) is also distinguishable on its own facts. In this case also Mrs. Aloo Nariman Bharucha had an overriding title to 25 per cent of the profits of the partnership for which there was consideration as the amounts standing to the credit of Mr. Nariman Bharucha in the capital and current account of the business of the partnership were divided between his two sons in equal shares and were to belong to them absolutely.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bhagwan Das Sita Ram on 3 January, 1973
16. The last case of Sita Ram (supra) also stands distinguished. In fact, in this case there were a number of facts including a partnership deed by which the deity was made a partner in the firm. On a perusal of the facts of the case, it was held that the income of the business to the extent of one-half never belonged to the assessee and it went to the deity through an overriding title.
P.C. Mullick vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 1 February, 1938
The Court also observed that the present case fell within the rule stated by the Judicial Committee in P.C. Mullick v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 206.
Joint Family Of Udayan Chinubhai Etc vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 14 October, 1966
In the case of Udayan Chinubhai (supra), it was found that by virtue of the position under the Hindu law, the Trusts Act, the terms of the consent decree and the arbitrators' award, an overriding title had been created in favour of the creditors to have their liabilities paid from the assets, which came into the hands of the assessee and thus, the interest paid to the creditors did not form part of the real income of the assessee. It was also held that income taxable under the Income-tax Act is the real income of the assessee and in determining the real income, the question was not of any physical receipt of income, but of the concept of the receipt in law. We have already seen above that there was no overriding title in favour of Lok Sewa Mission by which it could be held that a part of the profits of the assessee-firm did not form part of its income. The doctrine of real income, therefore, does not arise in the present case and, in any case, the entire profit earned by the assessee-firm was its real income liable to tax in its hands.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Crawford Bayley & Co. on 14 March, 1976
22. The counsel for the assessee also argued that a beneficiary had the right to sue for the benefit accruing to it. As an instance, he referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Crawford Bayley & Co. [1977] 106 ITR 884. This decision is again distinguishable on its own facts. In this case, two of the partners of the assessee-firm had died. A supplementary deed was executed subsequently. Under the provisions of the partnership deeds, the widows of the deceased partners were made some payments monthly. They were claimed as deductions. The ITO rejected the claim holding that the widows were not parties to the agreement, that they had no rights against the firm, that the payments to them were purely voluntary, that it was open to the partners to modify or stop making payments without the consent of the widows and that as the payments had to be made irrespective of profits or losses resulting to the firm, they had no bearing on the income of the firm and were not a charge on the firm. The Tribunal held that there was an obligation in the nature of a trust on the surviving partners to make payments and accepted the claim of the assessee.
Surajratan Damani vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 16 August, 1974
In the case of Surajratan Damani (supra), he had made a gift of 7½ per cent of the managing agency commission from a company. It was held that on a plain reading of the operative part of the gift deed, its effect was to transfer the source of income to the daughters before the income had accrued or had arisen to the assessee in a particular year. It was held that as the source of income was really transferred to the daughters before the income had accrued in any of the accounting year, such income could not be regarded as the income of the assessee for any of the relevant assessment years. Similar findings were given in the other two cases.
K. A. Ramachar And Another vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 10 January, 1961
This case, therefore, falls within the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Ramachar (supra).