| Case ID |
31981ba2-64cf-4d8e-916c-33b846a827f7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
TAX CASE NOS. 3 AND 154 OF 1962 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 19, 1965 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court ruled in favor of the assessees, determining that the surplus realizations from the sale of properties were not revenue receipts assessable to income tax. The court held that the profits realized from the sale of properties after the dissolution of the partnership were treated as capital receipts rather than income from a business activity. Furthermore, the sums credited as interest in the profit and loss accounts were deemed not to be actual income, as they were merely notional amounts pending actual receipt, and thus not taxable. The assessments made by the Income Tax Officer were overturned, affirming that the assessees did not engage in a business of buying and selling real estate post-dissolution. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the taxation of surplus realizations and interest receipts under the Income Tax Act, 1922. The assessees, following the dissolution of their partnership which engaged in money-lending and real estate, sold properties and claimed that the profits were capital receipts rather than taxable income. The Madras High Court upheld their claim, emphasizing that mere realization of property does not constitute a trade and that unrealized interest entries in their accounts did not reflect actual income for tax purposes. The decision highlights critical aspects of tax law regarding capital vs. revenue receipts and the treatment of notional income, establishing a precedent for similar cases in income tax assessments. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SRINIVASAN,
VENKATADRI
|
| Lawyers |
K. Parasaran for the Applicant,
V. Balasubrahamanyan for the Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income tax
|
| Citations |
1966 SLD 162 = (1966) 59 ITR 440
|
| Other Citations |
Alabama Coal, Iron, Land and Colonization Co. Ltd. v. Mylam (H.M. Inspector of Taxes) [1926] 11 Tax Cas. 232,
Californian Copper Syndicate v. Harris [1904] 5 Tax Cas. 159,
CIT v. S.M. Chitnavis AIR 1929 Nag. 50 (FB),
Doughty v. CIT [1927] AC 327,
Dublin Corpn. v. McAdam (Surveyor of Taxes) [1887] 2 Tax Cas. 387,
Hudson Bay Co. v. Stevens [1909] 5 Tax Cas. 424,
Indermani Jatia v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 298 (SC),
Kannappa Chettiar v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 576 (sic),
Murugappa Chettiar v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 797 (Mad.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
3,
4
|