Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.61 seconds)Income Tax Rules, 1962
Francis Vallabarayar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Madras. on 14 April, 1960
In Francis Vallabarayar v. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Madras(1) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held
that an assessee is entitled in assessment of tax under s.
10 of the Income-tax Act, to depreciation allowance in
respect of machinery or plant, which he acquires by
inheritance, on the market value of such property at the
date of inheritance. The same principle would apply to
cases of gift and succession. The Legislature has by adding
cl. (c) in sub-s. (5) of s. 10 by s. 8 of the Indian Income-
tax (Amendment) Act 25 of 1953, defined 'written-down value'
in the case of assets acquired by the assessee by way of
gift or inheritance as being the written-down value as in
the case of previous owner or the market value thereof
whichever is less.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Jogta Coal Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 2 March, 1959
In the case of purchase, as we have
already observed, in the absence of fraudulent over-
valuation with a view to obtain an unfair advantage, the
price paid by the purchaser would be regarded for the
purpose of depreciation allowance as the actual cost to him,
and not the original cost to the vendor: Commissioner of
Income-tax v. The Buckingham Carnatic Company Ltd. C): Jogta
Coal Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal
C). Cases in which full title to an asset, in respect of
which depreciation is claimed, is obtained in consequence of
partition of a Hindu undivided family introduce a
complication, which is a peculiar product of the rules of
Hindu law. Under the Mitakshara system the essence of a
coparcenary is unity of ownership, and so long as the family
remains joint no individual member can claim that he has a
definite share in the joint property. Until partition takes
place, there is community of interest and unity of
possession between all the members: it is only on partition
that the interest of each member becomes definite.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Buckingham And Carnatic Company ... on 25 October, 1935
In the case of purchase, as we have
already observed, in the absence of fraudulent over-
valuation with a view to obtain an unfair advantage, the
price paid by the purchaser would be regarded for the
purpose of depreciation allowance as the actual cost to him,
and not the original cost to the vendor: Commissioner of
Income-tax v. The Buckingham Carnatic Company Ltd. C): Jogta
Coal Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal
C). Cases in which full title to an asset, in respect of
which depreciation is claimed, is obtained in consequence of
partition of a Hindu undivided family introduce a
complication, which is a peculiar product of the rules of
Hindu law. Under the Mitakshara system the essence of a
coparcenary is unity of ownership, and so long as the family
remains joint no individual member can claim that he has a
definite share in the joint property. Until partition takes
place, there is community of interest and unity of
possession between all the members: it is only on partition
that the interest of each member becomes definite.
Section 8 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
The Indian Iron And Steel Company ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 March, 1943
In the case of an assessee acquiring
a property by purchase, gift, bequest or succession, courts
have held that the cost of the property to the assessee was
not the original cost of it to his predecessor but its
actual cost to him at the time of the purchase, gift,
bequest or succession, as the case may be: see Commissioner
of Income-tax, Madras v. The Buckingham & Carnatic
Company, Ltd., Madras (1), and Jagta Coal Co. Ltd. v
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal(2)--purchase;
Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Bengal("), and Francis Vallabarayar v. Commissioner of
Income-tax, Madras(4)--succession; and Commissioner of
Income-tax, Burma v. Solomon & Sons(5)--bequest. A
Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in Commissioner of
Income-tax, U.P. & C.P.v. Seth Mathuradas Mohta(6) dealt
with a case of partition. Therein, it held that the cost to
the assessee, who was a divided member, of a property was
the cost of it to the original joint Hindu family at the
time it was acquired. The learned Judges gave various
illustrations in support of their conclusion. It is true
that, if the valuation of the properties was given
nationally as a mode of choosing properties, there will be
some plausibility in the contention that there is no change
in the valuation between the date the property was purchased
and the date when it was allotted to one of the members of
the family. But, if the valuation of a property was not
notional but was real and that was the basis for
allocating properties to different shares, we do not see how
the cost of a property allocated to a member would be that
at which it was purchased in the remote past. We cannot
agree with the view expressed by the Nagpur High Court.
(1) (1935) 3 I.T.R. 384 (P.C.)
(2) (1960) 40 I.T.R. 426.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka on 23 February, 1962
In Shirinbai's case(1) the Court was
(1) 46 I.T.R. 86.