Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court rules additional film remuneration as assessable income under Indian Income-tax Act.</h1> <h3>C. Lakshmi Rajyam Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras</h3> The court determined that the sums received by the assessee were additional remuneration for her services in the film, constituting income assessable ... - Issues Involved:1. Nature and character of the receipt of sums by the assessee.2. Whether the sums received by the assessee constitute income assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nature and Character of the Receipt of Sums by the Assessee:The primary issue for consideration was whether the sums received by the assessee were remuneration for services rendered or a personal gift. The assessee, an actress, was engaged to take the part of the heroine in a film produced by Sadhana Pictures. After the film's success, Ranganatha Dass, who had a half share in Sadhana Pictures, executed a document agreeing to pay the assessee a fourth of his share of the film's realizations. This agreement was characterized by the assessee as a personal gift, while the Income-tax authorities treated it as additional remuneration.The court examined the nature of the payment, considering whether it was intended as remuneration or a testimonial gift. It was noted that payments made voluntarily by an employer, even if not under a contractual obligation, could still be considered remuneration if they were intended to reward services rendered. The court referenced several precedents, including Reed v. Seymour and Bridges v. Bearsley, to illustrate the distinction between remuneration and personal gifts.The document executed by Ranganatha Dass explicitly stated that the payment was 'special remuneration in addition to the fixed remuneration paid by the firm for her services as artist in the picture.' This clear and unambiguous language indicated that the payment was intended as remuneration for the services rendered by the assessee.2. Whether the Sums Received Constitute Income Assessable Under the Indian Income-tax Act:The court considered whether the sums of Rs. 63,258 and Rs. 10,362 received by the assessee during the years ended March 31, 1952, and March 31, 1953, respectively, constituted income assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer had included these amounts in the assessee's taxable income, a decision upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal.The court emphasized that the nature of the payment must be determined based on whether it was received by virtue of the assessee's employment. Payments received as remuneration for services, even if voluntary, are considered income. The court rejected the argument that the payment was a personal gift, noting that the document explicitly described it as additional remuneration.The court also addressed the argument that the payment was made by Ranganatha Dass, who was not the direct employer but a partner in the firm. It was held that the source of the payment did not alter its character as remuneration for services rendered.Conclusion:The court concluded that the sums received by the assessee were indeed additional remuneration for her services in the film and thus constituted income assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act. The terms of the document were decisive in determining the nature of the payment, and the alternative argument of a personal gift was not supported by the evidence. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, and the assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the Department.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found