Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.42 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mehboob Productions Private Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 19 December, 1974
22. It is axiomatic to say that all receipts would not necessarily be deemed to be income and the question whether any particular receipt is income or not depends on the nature of the receipt and the true scope and effect of the relevant taxing provision (see Mehboob Productions Private LTD. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 658 (Bom)).
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shaw, Wallace And Co. on 14 March, 1932
24. What is the precise connotation of income which can be subjected to tax is a subject-matter of many judicial decisions and a few relevant decisions have been cited on behalf of both the sides before us to persuade us to accept the rival contention. The word "income" is of widest and indefinite import and there cannot be any strait-jacket formula by which on can determine the nature of the receipt as to whether it is an income which is liable to be taxed or not. "Income" generally means, as said by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in CIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co., AIR 1932 PC 138, periodical monetary return with expected regularity and though the source may not be productive, it must be one whose object is the production of a definite return.
Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran Narain Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 May, 1935
The Privy Council has also tersely put it in another case, viz., Maharajkumar Gopal Saran Narain Sings v. CIT [1935] 3 ITR 237 (PC), that the word "income" is not limited by the words "profits and gains" and anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted.
Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bihar And ... on 15 April, 1963
In Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. CIT ([1943] 11 ITR 513, the Privy Council again tried to indicate as to what would constitute an income. It said that income is not necessarily the recurrent return from a definite source, though it is generally of the character.
P. Krishna Menon vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 7 October, 1958
26. It is a settled position in law that in order to become a vocation, an activity need not be organised and a single act may amount to carrying on a business, profession or vocation. The real question, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Krishna Menon v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 48, is whether the activity has actually produced an income and it matters not whether the activity is called by the name of business, profession or vocation, or by any other name, or with what intention it was carried on. The Supreme Court in Krishna Menon's case [1959] 35 ITR 48, recognised as settled principle that in case of voluntary payment, no tax can be levied on it, if it had been made for reasons purely personal to the donee and unconnected with his office or vocation, while it will be taxable it was made because of the office or vocation of the donee. The Supreme Court indicated a broad test as to whether an activity attributed to the assessee is a causa causans to the making of the offerings or it was merely causa causans sine qua non. In order that a receipt may be treated as income liable to tax, it is not necessary that the recipient has an immediate right of action against the payer discontinuing the payment.