TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms Tribunal on Income-tax Act Schedule 5(4) interpretation.</h1> <h3>Nopram Ramgopal Versus Commissioner, Income-Tax, B. And.</h3> The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision regarding the interpretation of Schedule 5(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1939. It held that relief under Schedule ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of Schedule 5(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1939 regarding exemption from income tax.2. Determination of relief eligibility based on businesses in existence in 1918.3. Assessment of whether separate businesses constitute one entity for tax relief purposes.Analysis:1. The case involved a petition under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act challenging the order of the Income Tax Tribunal, Madras Branch. The main question was the applicability of Schedule 5(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1939 to all business activities or only those assessed under the Act of 1918.2. The petitioner, a joint Hindu family concern, transitioned to a partnership firm in 1943. The dispute arose when the petitioner claimed exemption under Schedule 5(4) for businesses existing in 1918. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed relief for two out of six businesses, emphasizing assessment under the Act of 1918. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the revision petition.3. The petitioner's argument centered on the interpretation of Schedule 5(4), asserting relief eligibility based on individual assessment rather than business nature. However, the Court emphasized that relief applies to businesses assessed under the Act of 1918 to prevent double taxation. The Tribunal's decision was deemed correct as businesses post-1918 were not interconnected with those assessed in 1918.4. The Court rejected the petitioner's claim that all businesses, regardless of origin, should qualify for relief. It clarified that relief under Schedule 5(4) is specific to businesses assessed in 1918. The judgment highlighted the need for factual determination to ascertain if separate businesses constitute one entity for tax relief purposes.5. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that businesses like grain trading and cardboard manufacturing, initiated post-1918, did not form a single entity for tax relief. The judgment emphasized the factual interconnection and interdependence of businesses to determine relief eligibility under Schedule 5(4).6. Chief Justice Ray concurred with the judgment, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the interpretation and application of Schedule 5(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1939.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
