Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1967 1967 (7) This

Law	-- All -- 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
Court	-- Any -- 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
Citation	--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 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 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
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 101 to 104 of 104 Records

• 1967 (7) TMI 4
  

  Assessee effected certain sales in British India under separate contracts and categories - Tribunal was right in holding that a proportionate part of the profits determined on sales grouped under items 3,4,5 and 9 in the assessment order by the application of r. 33 was assessable to income-tax - Revenue's Appeals allowed. Case remanded

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 3
  

  Income-tax Amending Act 1 of 1959 - Whether, the argument of the respondent with regard to the legal effect of the Amending Act of 1959 is within the frame-work of the question already referred to the High Court - Appeal allowed - Case remanded to the High Court for examining the question of law referred to it after considering the impact of the Amending Act of 1959

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 2
  
  Issues:
  Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer to reopen assessments under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The case involved the assessees, M/s. A. Raman & Company, who were dealers in "mill stores" and sold these stores to other dealers, including Hindu undivided families trading under different names. The Income-tax Officer sought to reopen the assessments for the years 1959-60, 1960-61, and 1961-62 based on the belief that profits were diverted to the Hindu undivided families to evade taxation. The High Court quashed the notices issued under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, leading to an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax to the Supreme Court.
  
  The key issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to reopen assessments under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This section allows reassessment if the officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to information in his possession. The Supreme Court emphasized that the condition precedent for reassessment is the officer's belief based on information in his possession.
  
  The Court highlighted that the term "information" refers to knowledge derived externally concerning facts or law relevant to the assessment. The presence of such information empowers the Income-tax Officer to reassess income. The Court clarified that the officer's jurisdiction is not affected even if the information could have been obtained during the previous assessment but was not. The High Court's role under article 226 of the Constitution is limited to determining the existence of the jurisdictional condition, not reassessing evidence or inferences made by the officer.
  
  Regarding the specific case, the Income-tax Officer's plea that profits were diverted to Hindu undivided families through a contrivance was found lacking. The Court held that the officer failed to establish that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Merely dividing income between the assessee and another person through a device does not automatically warrant reassessment. The Court emphasized that income earned by the assessee is taxable, not potential income that was not realized. Since the officer did not provide sufficient grounds for reassessment, the High Court's decision to quash the notices was upheld.
  
  In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's decision to quash the notices. No costs were awarded in both courts.

  ---

• 1967 (7) TMI 1
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act for reassessment.
  2. Competency of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to set aside and give directions for reassessment.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment concerns a case where a Hindu undivided family was assessed for tax under the Mysore Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1949-50. The Income-tax Officer initiated a proceeding under section 34 of the Act for reassessment and served a notice in 1951. Subsequently, the total income was determined at a higher amount in 1954. An appeal was made to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who set aside the order and directed a fresh assessment. The High Court was approached for reference on two questions, one regarding the time limit for reassessment under section 34 and the other on the authority of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to give directions for reassessment.
  
  Upon hearing the reference, the High Court did not consider the first question and answered the second question affirmatively. The respondents then sought a writ of prohibition from the High Court to stop the reassessment, claiming it was time-barred. The High Court agreed with the respondents, citing similarities between section 34 of the Income-tax Act and rule 34 of the Sales Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax appealed to the Supreme Court.
  
  The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act, emphasizing that a reassessment proceeding can be initiated if income has escaped assessment and a notice is served within four years of the assessment year. In this case, the notice was served within the prescribed period, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order did not invalidate the notice. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the reassessment proceeding was not time-barred.
  
  Additionally, the Court noted that the respondents had already obtained a reference on the time limit question, which was not pursued before the High Court. The Court ruled that this question could not be raised again through a writ petition under the Constitution. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to bear the costs of the Commissioner in both courts.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of section 34 of the Mysore Income-tax Act regarding reassessment time limits and the authority of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to direct reassessment. It underscores the importance of serving a notice within the stipulated period for initiating a reassessment proceeding and highlights the limitations on re-agitating issues already addressed in a reference.

  ---

1 ....23456