Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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 in favor of firm on tax issues, finds remittance as capital repayment.</h1> <h3>Spedding, Dinga Singh and Co. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab.</h3> Spedding, Dinga Singh and Co. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab. - [1937] 5 ITR 490 (LA) Issues Involved:1. Taxation of Kashmir profits.2. Remittance of Rs. 37,000.3. Calculation of excess inwards.4. Legal presumption of profits in imported timber.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Taxation of Kashmir Profits:The firm, registered in Lahore, engaged in timber business in Kashmir, was assessed for profits made in British India and Kashmir. The dispute arose regarding the taxation of Rs. 67,095 profits from Kashmir. The Commissioner of Income Tax held that these profits were received in India and thus taxable. The firm contended that these profits were not received in India and should not be taxed.2. Remittance of Rs. 37,000:The Income Tax Officer included Rs. 20,102 in the assessment, assuming it represented profits brought into British India. The firm argued that the Rs. 37,000 remitted to India was not profits but capital used to repay a bank overdraft. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner upheld the taxation, stating the purpose of the remittance did not determine its nature as profits.3. Calculation of Excess Inwards:The Commissioner calculated an excess inwards of Rs. 96,512, based on the difference between remittances to Kashmir (Rs. 7,37,488) and the cost price of the timber brought into India (Rs. 8,34,000). The firm argued that the cost price included Rs. 1,22,000 spent in British India, making the actual cost price Rs. 7,12,000, which was less than the remittances, thus negating any excess inwards.4. Legal Presumption of Profits in Imported Timber:The Commissioner presumed the timber imported into British India comprised the Kashmir profits, as the firm failed to prove otherwise. The firm contended that the timber was stock in trade, and profits were made upon its sale in India, not upon its import. The court found no judicial authority supporting the presumption that stock in trade is profit unless proven otherwise.Judgment Analysis:Taxation of Kashmir Profits:The court noted that the assessment was based on the firm's accounts, which were accepted as properly maintained. It was agreed that the figures adopted by the Commissioner were correct. The court found no evidence that any part of the Kashmir profits was brought into India by the partners, and the Commissioner did not tax the Rs. 37,000 remittance as profits. The court concluded that the profits stayed in Kashmir and were not received in British India.Remittance of Rs. 37,000:The court observed that the Commissioner did not base his assessment on the presumption that the Rs. 37,000 remittance was profits. The court held that there was no legal presumption that the remittance was profits, especially since the Commissioner did not tax this amount.Calculation of Excess Inwards:The court found that the Commissioner's calculation of excess inwards was based on erroneous figures. The firm's figures, showing that Rs. 1,22,000 was spent on the timber in British India, were accepted. This meant there was no inward excess. The court concluded that there was no evidence proving an inward excess.Legal Presumption of Profits in Imported Timber:The court rejected the Commissioner's presumption that the imported timber comprised the Kashmir profits. It held that the timber was stock in trade, and profits were made upon its sale in India. The court found no judicial authority supporting the presumption that stock in trade is profit unless proven otherwise. The court concluded that the evidence established the firm's case that the timber was capital.Conclusion:The court answered the first question in the negative, stating that no legal presumption arose that the remittance or the timber comprised profits. The second question was answered in the affirmative, concluding that no profits were received in British India. The Commissioner was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found