Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)Section 16 in Karnataka Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Makanji Lalji on 25 March, 1937
In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Makanii Lalji, 1937-5 ITR 539=(AIR 1937 Bom 479) Chief Justice Beaumont said that maintenance paid to a member of a joint family out of the joint family income is merely an application of a portion of the income of the joint family and cannot be deducted in computing the income of the joint family even though the amount of the maintenance was fixed by a decree of court and made a charge on the joint family properties. It would seem that the fact of the existence of a decree for maintenance creating a charge on the properties of the joint familv for it would make a difference. That is probably the reason why the case was not quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Commr. of Income-
A. R. Rangachari vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 21 March, 1955
16. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that it a settlement or deposition of income is made, whether it be application or diversion of income, and that settlement
or disposition satisfies the requirements of the third proviso, the income disposed of ceases effectively to be the income of the transferor. What Section 9(1) says is that where there is a revocable or non-revocable settlement or transfer of income, the income can be assessed in the hands of the settlor, or transferor, unless the case falls within the third proviso to the sub-section. In other words, under Sub-section (1) of Section 9, every disposition of income is disregarded in computing the total income of the disponer, but by reason of the third proviso, dispositions of a particular character and enuring for a particular duration are saved. We think that settlements or dispositions of income which are merely applications of income are not within Section 9(1), or the provisos thereto, while dispositions which are diversions of income are saved only when the conditions of the third proviso are satisfied. (See the observations of Rajagopala Ayyangar J. in A.R. Rangachari v. Commr. of Income-tax. (1955) 28 I. T. R. 528 at P. 541 (Mad)).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Ratilal Nathalal on 5 April, 1954
17. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax. Bombay v. Ratilal Nathulal, (1954) 25 ITR 426=(AIR 1954 SC 503) and contended that the "settlor" in the instant case is tharwad and that there was an irrevocable transfer of the income of the properties to the junior members of the tharwad and that the third proviso to Section 9(1) was attracted. The transferor in that case was an undivided Hindu family and the transfer was by the execution of a trust deed by Ramlibhai and his son, Ratilal, the sole coparceners at the time, and the provision in the trust deed was that the income of "trust property" was to be enjoyed by Ramjibhai during his life-time and after his death by his son, Ratilal. The effect of the execution of the trust deed was that the properties ceased to belong to the joint family as also the income therefrom. When Ratilal, who was one of the beneficiaries under the trust, became the manager of the undivided family, the question arose whether this circumstance would enable the Revenue to assess the income derived from the trust properties as the income of the joint family.
Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 March, 1932
In Bejoy Singh Dudhuria v. Commisioner of Income-tax, Calcutta, (1933) 1 ITR 135 = (AIR 1933 PC 145) the assessee succeeded to the family ancestral estate on his father's death. Subsequently, his stepmother, who had a legal right to maintenance out of the estate, brought a suit for maintenance against him and a consent decree was passed directing the assessee to pay a fixed monthly sum to his step-mother and declaring that the maintenance was a charge on the ancestral estate. It was conceded that the assessee was liable to be assessed as an individual and that he and his step-mother were not members of an undivided family. The Privy Council said that the sums paid by the assessee to his stepmother were not the income of the assessee at all. Lord Macmillan, in delivering the judgment of the Board, said:
Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 March, 1948
1945-13 ITR 105 = (AIR 1945 Bom 254), Behramji Sorabji v. Commr. of Income-tax, (1948) 16 ITR 301-(AIR 1948 Bom 405), K. Subramania Pillai v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, (1964) 53 ITR 764 (Mad) and Tarunendra Nath v. Commr. of Income-tax, AIR 1958 Cal 350 and submitted that Clause 17 in the karar giving power to the first party, the karnavan, to re-assume any property allotted, in case it is alienated or encumbered, though contingent in nature would be sufficient to make the karar a revocable settlement within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 9(1), and therefore, the third proviso would not, in any event, be attracted We find it unnecessary to express any opinion on this aspect, in view of our answers to the first and second questions.
Tarunendra Nath Tagore And Others vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 3 September, 1957
1945-13 ITR 105 = (AIR 1945 Bom 254), Behramji Sorabji v. Commr. of Income-tax, (1948) 16 ITR 301-(AIR 1948 Bom 405), K. Subramania Pillai v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, (1964) 53 ITR 764 (Mad) and Tarunendra Nath v. Commr. of Income-tax, AIR 1958 Cal 350 and submitted that Clause 17 in the karar giving power to the first party, the karnavan, to re-assume any property allotted, in case it is alienated or encumbered, though contingent in nature would be sufficient to make the karar a revocable settlement within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 9(1), and therefore, the third proviso would not, in any event, be attracted We find it unnecessary to express any opinion on this aspect, in view of our answers to the first and second questions.
Ramji Keshavji vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 September, 1944
21. Counsel for the Revenue referred to the rulings in Ramji Keshavji v. Commr. of Income-tax. Bombay.
Gour Mohan Mullick vs Commr. Of Agricultural Income-Tax, ... on 6 May, 1952
In Mullick v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bengal, (1938) 6 ITR 206 = (AIR 1938 PC 118) the Privy Council had to consider a case of executors who had received the whole income of the estate and who applied a portion of it pursuant to the directions of the testator and other legal obligations. The Board said that payment of Addya Sradh expenses, the cost of probate, death duties and other debts due to the State, or periodic payments to beneficiaries out of the income of the estate in compliance with the obligatory directions of the testator cannot be excluded in computing the chargeable income of the estate.