Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, ... vs Christine Cardoza on 8 June, 1978 cites

Addanki Narayanappa & Anr vs Bhaskara Krishtappa And 13 Ors on 21 January, 1966

4. The contention on behalf of the department is this that the deduction or exemption under section 5(1)(iv-a) can be given only when the value of agricultural land belonging to the assessee is included in the net wealth and in the instant case what is included is only the value of the interest of the assessee in a firm which includes movable and immovable properties and not the value of agricultural land belonging to the assessee as such and accordingly the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. It is further asserted that the immovable property, though it might have belonged to the assessee at one time, had become the partnership property and by virtue of a partnership having been constituted the proprietary right of the assessee had been transformed into a contractual right and the right she had in the partnership firm was not immovable property but movable property and, therefore, it could not be said that any agricultural land belonged to her. Reliance has been placed in this behalf on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, , and three other cases, viz., (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Juggilal Kamlapat), (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dewas Cine Corporation) and the decision if the High Court of Madras [1976] 104 ITR 608 (Purushothamdas Gocooldas v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax).
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 410 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... vs Dewas Cine Corporation on 8 November, 1967

4. The contention on behalf of the department is this that the deduction or exemption under section 5(1)(iv-a) can be given only when the value of agricultural land belonging to the assessee is included in the net wealth and in the instant case what is included is only the value of the interest of the assessee in a firm which includes movable and immovable properties and not the value of agricultural land belonging to the assessee as such and accordingly the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. It is further asserted that the immovable property, though it might have belonged to the assessee at one time, had become the partnership property and by virtue of a partnership having been constituted the proprietary right of the assessee had been transformed into a contractual right and the right she had in the partnership firm was not immovable property but movable property and, therefore, it could not be said that any agricultural land belonged to her. Reliance has been placed in this behalf on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, , and three other cases, viz., (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Juggilal Kamlapat), (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dewas Cine Corporation) and the decision if the High Court of Madras [1976] 104 ITR 608 (Purushothamdas Gocooldas v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 109 - J C Shah - Full Document

R.M. Chidambaram Pillai And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 5 December, 1969

The Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the High Court of Madras in R. M. Chidambaram Pillai v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1970] 77 ITR 494 [FB], upheld the contention of the assessee that only 40 per cent. of the salary received was liable to income-tax as the remaining 60 percent. was attributable to agricultural from the land which was held in partnership.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Dulichand Lakshminarayan vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Nagpur on 17 February, 1956

"It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the law, English as well as Indian has, for some specific purposes, some of which are referred to above, relaxed its rigid notions and extended a limited personality to a firm. Nevertheless, the general concept of a partnership, firmly established in both systems of law, still is that a firm is not an entity or'person' in law but is merely an association of individuals who constitute the firm. In other words, a firm name is merely an expression, only a compendious mode of designating the persons who have agreed to carry on business in partnership. According to the principles of English jurisprudence, which we have adopted for the purposes of determining legal rights 'there is no such thing as a firm known to the law' as we said by James L.J. in Ex parte Corbett : In re Shand [1880] 14 Ch D 122, 126 (CA). In these circumstances, to import the definition of the word 'person' occuring in section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, into section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, will, according to lawyers, English or Indian, be totally repugnant to the subject of partnership law as they know and understand it to be."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 220 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Juggilal Kamalapat on 7 October, 1966

4. The contention on behalf of the department is this that the deduction or exemption under section 5(1)(iv-a) can be given only when the value of agricultural land belonging to the assessee is included in the net wealth and in the instant case what is included is only the value of the interest of the assessee in a firm which includes movable and immovable properties and not the value of agricultural land belonging to the assessee as such and accordingly the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. It is further asserted that the immovable property, though it might have belonged to the assessee at one time, had become the partnership property and by virtue of a partnership having been constituted the proprietary right of the assessee had been transformed into a contractual right and the right she had in the partnership firm was not immovable property but movable property and, therefore, it could not be said that any agricultural land belonged to her. Reliance has been placed in this behalf on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, , and three other cases, viz., (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Juggilal Kamlapat), (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dewas Cine Corporation) and the decision if the High Court of Madras [1976] 104 ITR 608 (Purushothamdas Gocooldas v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 38 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Purushothamdas Gocooldas And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 13 August, 1975

4. The contention on behalf of the department is this that the deduction or exemption under section 5(1)(iv-a) can be given only when the value of agricultural land belonging to the assessee is included in the net wealth and in the instant case what is included is only the value of the interest of the assessee in a firm which includes movable and immovable properties and not the value of agricultural land belonging to the assessee as such and accordingly the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. It is further asserted that the immovable property, though it might have belonged to the assessee at one time, had become the partnership property and by virtue of a partnership having been constituted the proprietary right of the assessee had been transformed into a contractual right and the right she had in the partnership firm was not immovable property but movable property and, therefore, it could not be said that any agricultural land belonged to her. Reliance has been placed in this behalf on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, , and three other cases, viz., (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Juggilal Kamlapat), (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dewas Cine Corporation) and the decision if the High Court of Madras [1976] 104 ITR 608 (Purushothamdas Gocooldas v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax).
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 Next