|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 7 of 7 Records
-
1955 (7) TMI 34
... ...
... ... ..... s a case of escapement of tax and proceeding under Section 26 of that Act. 8. In the present case, as I have pointed out, the assessment proceedings had not come to an end. The return was still pending. Whether it was pending before the territorial Income Tax Officer or the Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, is immaterial so far as the assessee is concerned. He had filed a return and an assessment could have been made by the department under Section 23 in pursuance of that return. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the income chargeable to Income Tax had escaped assessment, and therefore, the Income Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 34 of the Act. 9. For the reasons stated above, we answer the question in the negative and hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment under Section 34 is not valid. The assessee is entitled to his costs. 10. Hearing fee one hundred rupees. S.P. Mohapatra, J. 11. I agree.
-
1955 (7) TMI 33
... ...
... ... ..... transfer or settlement as disclosed by the partnership deeds. Only we wish to add that if we had reached a conclusion favourable to the assessee on the construction of section 16(1)(c) and we are inclined to follow the decision of the Bombay High Court in D.R. Shahapure's case (supra)we would have directed the Tribunal to take these documents into consideration and submit a better statement of the case, with reference to the conclusions to be drawn on the nature of the property or asset, which was the subject matter of the disposition. But in view of the conclusion we have reached on the construction of section 16(1)(c) even on the footing that the transfer in the present case satisfied the requirements of the third proviso we do not find it necessary to refer the case back to the Tribunal. The result is that the question which has been referred to this Court for its decision has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs.
-
1955 (7) TMI 32
... ...
... ... ..... 953 23 I.T.R. 278. It follows quite clearly that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has powers to set aside the entire assessment and remand the case directing the Income-tax Officer to make fresh assessment after making such further enquiry as the Income-tax Officer thinks fit or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may direct. On receiving the cases on remand the Income-tax Officer has powers to make fresh assessment as directed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and to determine afresh the amounts of tax payable on the basis of such fresh assessment. Therefore, the director of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to make fresh assessment by including the sum of ₹ 64,000 in the amount of tax payable was perfectly legal and valid. I, therefore, answer the question in favour of the Income-tax Department and against the assessee. The Income-tax Department is entitled to their costs. Hearing fee ₹ 200 only. DAS, C.J.--I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (7) TMI 29
... ...
... ... ..... unce any opinion either on the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee, that, in any event, only a pronouncement of a High Court which had preceded the assessment, which pronouncement had been overlooked by the Income-tax Officer in the relevant assessment years, could at all be brought within the scope of section 34. Our answer to the first question is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In our opinion, in the circumstances of this case, the Patna decision referred to in this question did not satisfy the requirement of section 34. We answer the second question in the negative and in favour of the assessee, though the reason formulated in the question itself, that the department had hitherto treated such income as exempt from income-tax, is not what affects the validity of the proceedings under section 34 of the Act. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel's fee ₹ 250. Questions answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1955 (7) TMI 28
... ...
... ... ..... ture can be lawfully deducted from the income liable for assessment, the burden will shift on the assessee and if there is any ambiguity in the construction of the various clauses of section 6 or of the rules made under that section, a construction in favour of the State should be made. 14. I would therefore hold that in clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Rules, descendants in the male line of the present proprietor were designedly omitted and that the maintenance allowance given to the son of the present proprietor cannot be taken as a permissible deduction merely because that son also happens to be the grandson of the previous proprietor within the meaning of that clause. The answer to the question raised by the Member, Board of Revenue, is therefore in the negative. The reference is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner should pay hearing fee of ₹ 100 to the Department. MOHAPATRA, J.--I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (7) TMI 27
... ...
... ... ..... ey which is proposed to be spent for the widow but not actually spent. We may in this connexion refer to the meaning of the word "maintenance" given in Iyer's Law Lexicon, 1940 Edition, page 767 "Maintenance also means of subsistence, supply of necessaries and conveniences; aid, support, assistance; the support which one person who is bound by law to do so, gives to another for his living. (Bouvier L. Dict.)" For the above reasons, the second question is answered that a further sum of ₹ 4,505-14-0 spent by the assessee on the subsistence, supply of necessaries and conveniences for the lady and transferred to the maintenance allowance of the lady constitutes maintenance allowance within the meaning of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947. 11. The reference is disposed of accordingly. The assessee is entitled to costs of this Court. Hearing fee is assessed at one hundred rupees (Rs. 100). MISRA, J.--I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1955 (7) TMI 26
... ...
... ... ..... e their decisions can only be upset on appeal if they have been positively wrong in law. The court is not a second opinion, where there is reasonable ground for the first. But there is no reason to make a mystery about the subjects that commissioners deal with or to invite the courts to impose any exceptional restraints upon themselves because they are dealing with cases that arise out of facts found by commissioners. Their duty is no more than to examine those facts with a decent respect for the tribunal appealed from and if they think that the only reasonable conclusion on the facts found is inconsistent with the determination come to, to say so without more do. I agree that the appeal should be allowed. LORD TUCKER. My Lords, I agree, for the reasons which have been stated, that this appeal should be allowed. LORD SOMERVELL OF HARROW. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Radcliffe, in which I concur. Appeal allowed.
|
