income tax act section 40 b

Case Law

Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigra Dhoraji VS. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Gujarat

Recurso nº 10074, Ponente Venkataramiah,e.S. (J)

As part of a measure to mop up unaccounted money on which no income tax had been paid, an incentive scheme was prepared by the Government under which a person disclosing such income was required to pay a specified rate of tax without attracting the penal provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965 provided that a person making voluntary disclosure of his income in accordance with the provisions of the section would be charged income tax at a specified rate not...

Case Law

C.I.T., Madras VS. Brakes India Ltd.

Recurso nº 12087, Ponente Jeevan Reddy,b.P. (J)

During the accounting order relevant to assessment year 1965-66, the Respondent-assessee paid to its foreign technical director a total remuneration of Rs. 66,000 including a sum of Rs. 28,576 paid by way of perquisites. The Income-tax Officer allowed only a sum of Rs. 13,200 by way of perquisites and disallowed the balance of Rs. 15,376 in view of Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On an appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that since the salary o...

Case Law

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh,nagpur VS. Hukamchand Mohanlal

Recurso nº 7040, Ponente Grover

The assessee who was successor-in-business to her deceased husband was sought to be taxed under s. 41 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of certain amount received by her by way of remission from the sales tax recovered from her husband. On the 'question whether the amount was assessable under s. 41(1) of the Act. HELD : Section 41(1) does not apply, because, the assessee who is sought to be taxed is not the assessee contemplated by the section. If the husband of the assessee ...

Case Law

Agarwal And Co. VS. Commissioner Of Income-tax, U.P.

Recurso nº 1434, Ponente Hegde

A firm consisted of 18 partners. The partnership deed did not show that any of the partners joined the deed as representatives of their Hindu Undivided Families. The firm applied for registration under s. 26A of the Income-Tax Act, 1922. The income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were of the opinion that some partners of the firm having entered into the partnership as representatives of their respective Hindu undivided families, in view of section 4(3) ...

Case Law

Devi Cine Projector Manufacturingco., Etc. Etc. VS. Commissioner Of Income Tax

Recurso nº 7669, Ponente Venkatachalliah,m.N. (J)

The Income Tax Appellate TribUnal in appeals preferred before it the revenue held that the entirety of interest paid by a firm to its partner was disallowable under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act without reference to tile inter- est that might, in turn, have been paid by the partner to the firm on his borrowings. On appellants-assessees' appli- cation under Section 256(1) of the Act, the Tribunal de- clined to state a case and refer a question of law for the opinion of the High Cour...

Case Law

Challapalli Sugar Ltd. VS. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, A.P. Hyderabad

Recurso nº 6151, Ponente Khanna

In all the three appeals the case of the assessee is that the interest for the .period before the commencement of production on money borrowed for the purpose of acquiring and installing the machinery and Plant should be included in the actual cost of the plant and as such capitalised for the purpose. In Civil Appeal No. 1784, the contention of the assessee is that the wealth-tax payable by the assessee is allowable as a deduction. Allowing Civil Appeal No. 1353 of 1970 and dismissing Civi...

Case Law

Tea Estate India (P) Ltd. VS. Commissioner Of Income-tax

Recurso nº 5625, Ponente Khanna,hans Raj

The assessee company held certain shares in Dibru Darang Tea Co. Ltd. (D.D.T. Company) and Taikron Tea Company Ltd. (TT Company) . Both the Companies were companies growing, manufacturing and selling tea and owned large tea estates consisting of land, building plant, machinery etc. In 1947, both the said companies sold their entire tea estates including all assets to Brooke Bond Estate India Ltd. Consequently DDT Company received a surplus is Rs. 17,18,081/-over the book value of its a...

Case Law

Commissioner Of Income-tax, Madras VS. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai Etc.

Recurso nº 5463, Ponente Krishnaiyer,v.R.

Rule 24 of the Income Tax Rules, 1922 states that income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller shall be computed as if it were income derived from business and 40 per cent of such income shall be deemed to be income, profits and gains liable to tax. The respondents were partners in firms which owned tea estates, the composite income of which consisted largely of agricultural and partly of nonagricultural income. In addition to their share in profits, the res...

Case Law

R. R. Engineering Co. VS. Zila Parishad, Bareilly & Anr.

Recurso nº 4588, Ponente Chandrachud

Acting under the power conferred by section 108 of the District Boards Act, 1922 the District Board, Bareilly imposed "Circumstances and Property Tax" on persons according to their circumstances and property. In 1958 the powers and functions of the District Boards were vested in or were transferred to the Antarim Zila Parishads and later they were transferred to the Zila Parishads constituted under the U.P. Kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishads Act 1961. The 1961-Act empowered the Zila P...