Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)Provat Kumar Mitter vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West Bengal on 8 December, 1960
12. It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT that the fundamental principle is that an application of income is an allocation of one's own income after it accrues or has arisen, although such application may be under a contract or obligation, whereas diversion of income is that which diverts away or deflects before it accrues to or reaches the assessee, and it is received by him only for the benefit of the person who is entitled to the income under an overriding charge or title.
Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain vs Commissioner Of Income Tax , Delhi Etc on 8 April, 1991
In the case of Motilal Chhadam Lal Jain v. CIT , it was explained by the Supreme Court that what has to be seen is the nature of obligation by reason of which the income becomes payable to a person other than the one receiving it. Where the obligation flows out of an antecedent and independent title it effectively slices away a part of the corpus of the right to receive the entire income and thus it would be a case of diversion.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta, ... vs Imperial Chemical Industries (India) ... on 20 February, 1969
In the case of CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (P) Ltd. , it was pointed by the Supreme Court that where there is an obligation to apply an income in a particular way before it is received by the assessee or before it has accrued or arisen to the assessee, it is a case of diversion of the income.
1