the proper test to apply in this case is, was the payment made as a matter of practice which affected the quantum of salary or was there an expectation by the employee of getting a gratuity or was the sum of money expended on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business.
The sale was now of the product of another business, in which divers and equipment were first employed to get the shells. It thus took leases of extensive coastline with all the right to fish for chanks for some years. The shells were not the subject of the bargain at all, as were the tendu leaves ; but the bargain was about the right to fish. There can be no doubt that what it paid the divers when it bought chanks from them with the view of reselling them was expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business, which was not of a capital nature.
The High Court as well as the learned counsel for the respondent (who pressed upon us the reasons of the High Court) referred to the words of section 29 where, in addition to an " assessee " liable to pay the tax, occur the words " other person " liable to pay such tax, and observed that the respondent would fall to be governed by the words " other person " liable to pay such tax an not by the words " the assessee " liable to pay such tax.
The company was first assessed under rule 8(c)(i) of Schedule A. VII of the English Income-tax Act of 1918, which provided for assessment of landlords instead of tenants in the case of any house or building let in apartments or tenements.
The produce must retain its original character and the only change that may have been brought about in the produce is to make it marketable. The said change in the condition of the produce is only intended to make the produce a saleable commodity in the market.
the Wakf Validating Act, 1913, discarded that view and enacted by section 3 that a Mussalman can create a wakf for the maintenance and support, wholly or partially, of his family, children or descendants provided the ultimate benefit is expressly or impliedly reserved for the poor or for any other purpose recognized by the Mussalman law as a religious, pious or charitable purpose of a permanent character.
the income of the individual but the section does not prevent the husband or the father, as the case may be, from debiting against them in the partnership accounts that part of the tax referable to the share or shares of their income. It may be that a father or a husband may have to pay tax at a higher rate than ordinarily he would have to pay if the addition of the wife's or children's income to his own brings his total income to a higher slab.
the respondent's case clearly is that the notices issued against the two brothers by their respective Income-tax Officers are intended to determine who is responsible to pay tax for the income in question ; now though Mr. Nambiar wanted to argue that protective or precautionary assessment tax is not justified by any of the provisions of the Act he did not seriously contest the position that at the initial stage it would be open to the income-tax authorities to determine by proper proceedings who is in fact responsible for the payment of tax, and that is all that is being done at the present stage.
The section will still apply to shareholders of the company and to their income will be added the notional income determined under section 23A. We are unable to accept the argument that the principle that a legal fiction must be carried to its logical conclusion requires us to travel beyond the terms of the section or give the expression " shareholder " a meaning which it does not obviously bear.
the present case, the order of the High Court on the question referred was not brought before this court by the ordinary mode indicated in the Indian Income-tax Act, presumably because of the concession of counsel that he could not claim that the question be answered in favour of the assessee and the attitude of the department that the assessment of " Brijlal Nandkishore " would be cancelled.
The direction that such document (documents described in section 54) shall be treated as confidential is a direction to officials of the Income-tax Department, and in our opinion it is open to an assessee to waive that right and to give evidence, if he desires, of particulars contained in such a record, as was held in Rama Rao v. Venkataramayya.
The Income-tax Officer concerned disallowed the claim. There was an unsuccessful appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. An appeal was then taken to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and by the order complained of, namely, the order dated May 29, 1956, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The notice of motion to raise other questions in the High Court was rightly dismissed. Apart from the fact that the notice of motion was barred by time and there was no application for condonation of delay the questions which were sought to be raised were rightly held either to be covered by the question answered or they did not arise at all.
The main contention which Mr. Jha has pressed before us on behalf of the petitioner is that this provision as regards recruitment to post of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners from Class I Officers but not directly from Class II Officers violates article 16(1) of the Constitution. It is difficult to understand this argument. What article 16(1) provides is that there should be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
the Tribunal refuses to state a case, the party aggrieved may move the High Court to call upon the Tribunal to state a case and the High Court may so direct if it is not satisfied as to the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal refusing to state a case.
The observation is guarded, but it recognises the difference made in the Privy Council case and others between payment to compensate interference with a going business and compensation paid for stoppage of a business altogether. This distinction was emphasised in the dissenting opinion in Vazir Sultan's case.
for the time being in force relating to income-tax or super-tax. " For the purpose of this case the relevant words of that section are " constituted under an instrument of partnership specifying the individual shares of the partners.
that the income from the sale of lands was by way of business, and section 14(5)(a) cannot be called in aid to show that the sale of land was also for public welfare. In any event, the expenditure has been allowed to the assessee, and the only question is whether the income from the sale of land was properly included in his assessable income. We have shown above that it was properly included.
The assessee had received some profits from his share in an unregistered firm against which were set off his losses in his individual business, and the Income-tax Officer, who made the assessment, determined the loss to be carried forward at Rs. 53,840. The assessee appealed against the assessment, but did not question the loss which had been determined.
The Tribunal thought that since the scheme was completely under the control of the Deputy Commissioner, the assessees could not be said to have carried on business by working the scheme.