THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-I, BOMBAYversusMESSRS EMPIRE ESTATE, BOMBAY
1996 INSC 13729 January 1996Dismissed
The assessee, a partnership firm of three partners, lost one partner on 12 January 1974. The partnership deed did not contain a clause allowing the firm to continue after a partner's death, so under Section 42 of the Partnership Act the firm dissolved on that date. The surviving partners formed a new partnership deed t…
M/S. BRIJ MOHAN DAS LAXMAN DASversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD
1996 INSC 145710 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a partnership firm, paid interest to a partner who was also the Karta representing his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) on deposits made in his individual capacity. The Income Tax Officer added this interest back to the firm's income under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating it as a disallowe…
V.M. SALGAOCAR AND BROS. PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ETC.
2000 INSC 20810 April 2000Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether interest not charged by a company on loans advanced to its directors could be treated as a perquisite under Sections 17(2) and 40A(5) of the Income‑Tax Act. The Income‑Tax Officer had disallowed a sum equal to 15% of the directors' debit balances, but the Appellate Tribunal held that …
COMMISSIONER OF FNCOME TAX, BANGALOREversusSHREE MAN.JUNATHESWARE PACKING PRODUCTS AND CAMPHOR WORKS
1997 INSC 7772 December 1997Appeal(s) allowed
The assessee, Shree Man. Junathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works, constructed a cinema theatre and claimed a certain cost in its return for AY 1977‑78. The Income‑Tax Officer (ITO) passed an assessment based on the assessee’s figure because the Departmental Valuation Officer’s (DVO) report was not available at …