Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.80 seconds)Section 3 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Section 27 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Ahmad Husain vs Kallu Mian Sajhi Firm on 29 January, 1929
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Mohd. Ishaq vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 November, 1950
AIR 1929 All 277, Sulaiman and Kendall JJ, said: "God is a juristic person": and in Mohd. Ishaq v. Commr. of Income-tax, AIR 1951 All 512 Malik C. J. and Bhargava J said:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Keralaand ... vs Puthiya Ponmanichintakam. ... on 14 August, 1961
In Commr of Income-tax v. Puthiya Ponmanichintakam Wakf. AIR 1962 SC 163--a case dealing with the very wakf with which we are concerned--the Supreme Court dealt with the matter as follows:
Sm. Suhashini Karuri And Anr. vs Wealth Tax Officer, 'D' Ward And Anr. on 23 November, 1961
9. The words "on behalf of" used in the sub-section came up for consideration in Suhashini Karuri v. Wealth Tax Ofl'icer. AIR 1962 Cal 295. Sinlia J. after a detailed discussion of all the points involved, came to the conclusion that the words "on behalf of" used in the sub-section were synonymous with the expression "for the benefit of", and that notwithstanding that trustees hold property for the benefit of beneficiaries and not on their in-half, Section 21(1) applied to them and that they were liable to pay wealth-tax in the like manner and to the same extent as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from the bene fieiaries. We are in agreement with this con elusion
1