Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Laxmidas Devidas And Another. on 30 March, 1937
In the second case, that is,
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxmidas Devidas and Another
(3) Beaumont, C. J., at p. 589 laid down the test as
follows:-
Section 9 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Bombay vs Smt. Indira Balkrishna on 14 April, 1960
In our opinion the case so far as it
relates to the carrying on of the business and in so far as
it is contrary to the opinion expressed by this Court in
Indira Balkrishna's case (1), is not correctly decided.
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Khan Bahadur M. Habibur Rahman vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 14 December, 1944
Counsel
also relied on Khan Bahadur M. Habibur Rahman v.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa (3 ) in which a
waqf deed was executed by which the assessee dedicated the
income with ultimate benefit to the poor and constituted
himself the sole mutwali of the trust. The deed provided
that the beneficiaries should be benefited concurrently and
in the same proportion. It was held that s. 41(1) was
inapplicable and the assessee should, therefore, be taxed on
the basis of profits falling to the share of
(1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 513. (2) [1956] 30 I.T.R. 61.
(3) [1945] 13 I.T.R. 189.
S. C. Mazumdar, Receiver Trigunait ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 29 August, 1947
Counsel for the appellant relied on S. C. Mazumdar,Receiver,
Trigunait Brothers' Estate v. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2). That was a case of persons who formed a joint family
being governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. A
suit for partition was filed and the court appointed a
receiver and a preliminary decree was passed but the
receiver was continued in regard to certain portion of the
property and the income was assessed by the taxing
authorities as the income of an association of persons. It
was held that the income from property could not be taxed as
such because the shares of the parties were definite and
ascertainable. The amount paid by the lessees could not be
taxed in a lump sum as being the profits of a business
carried on by an association of persons and the assessment
was, therefore, made in accordance with the provisions of s.
9(3). It was also held that the assessees were not carrying
on a trade or business themselves and there was no
association of persons as contemplated by the Act. But that
case can be of no assistance in the decision of the matter
now before us. The income to be assessed there was not
income of any business carried on by or on behalf of the
assessees and it was held that letting out property was not
a trade or business. With regard to the income received by
the receiver
(1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 513.
Buldana District Main Cloth Importers ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax/Excess ... on 13 April, 1956
Another case relied upon by the counsel for the appellant
was Buldana District Main Cloth Importers' Group, Khamgaon
v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur (2). In that case a
certain group of persons were directed to import cloth in
the district and had to work a scheme for the distribution
and sale of cloth which had been evolved by the District
authorities. That was held not to be an association of
persons. It appears that although they were appointed as a
group of importers, all of them did not participate in that
scheme during the entire period. There were changes in the
personnel of the group from time to time and there was no
compulsion to work the scheme. On these facts it was held
that the group did not agree to carry on the business or
share the profits. That case must be taken to have been
decided on its own facts and does not in any way affect the
meaning of the phrase " association of persons."
1