Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 84 of 84 Records
-
1977 (6) TMI 4
Firm Registration, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, One Partner, Partner Retiring From Firm ... ... ... ... ..... 10th April, 1964, after the relevant previous year. The Kerala High Court held that there could be no question of condonation of delay as provided under s. 184 with reference to such a document. In view of this decision, the learned counsel for the assessee was not in a position to sustain his plea that the firm should be registered after March 4, 1963, as prayed under Form No. 11A. We do not, therefore, think it necessary to go into this aspect further. The result is that the first question would be answered in the negative and against the assessee. The second question would be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee with reference to the period up to March 3, 1963. The third question is answered as follows The Tribunal was right in law in granting registration for the firm for the assessment year 1963-64, but could only do so up to the period March 3, 1963, and the firm cannot be registered after that date for that year. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (6) TMI 3
Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... if I direct that the certificate proceedings will not be proceeded with for a period of four months so far as these relate to the proceedings in respect of premises No. 4, Palm Avenue, Calcutta, and if, in the meantime, the petitioner makes any representation or replies to any of the queries, mentioned in the letter dated 9th November, 1975, which is in annex. C to the petition, and if the ITO is satisfied with such replies and representation of the petitioner that the certificate proceedings require to be modified or adjusted or altered the ITO will take such steps. Otherwise, the certificate proceedings will proceed in accordance with the law. This order will, however, not prejudice or preclude any rights of the petitioner to take such objection as the petitioner is entitled to under the law before the TRO. Save as the aforesaid direction, the rule is disposed of. Interim order, if any, is vacated to the extent indicated above. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1977 (6) TMI 2
Agricultural Income Tax, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... consider that the doctrine of merger has no application over the aspects which had not been touched by the Tribunal in its order. The doctrine of merger would operate here only on matters decided by the Tribunal and, therefore, in case where the particular matter which was the subject matter of revision had not been placed before the Tribunal for its decision, the matter would be at large so as to be subject to the exercise of the powers of revision. We, therefore, see no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the order ultimately revised is only the order of the Appellate Tribunal. What was actually revised is only the order of the Assistant Commissioner so far as it gave certain reliefs to the assessee. For the above reasons, we hold that the order of the Commr. of Agrl. I.T. is proper and does not require any interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondent will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1977 (6) TMI 1
Reassessment, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... ase, the ITO acted on the returns filed by the appellant, issued notices under s. 143(2) and heard the appellant for the assessment years in question under s. 143(3), but without completing the assessments he took recourse to reopen the assessments under s. 147 by issuing the impugned notices under s. 148 of the Act. In our view, the ITO has acted without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notices. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of the learned judge and make the rule absolute. We direct that a writ in the nature of certiorari issue quashing the impugned notices under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, we direct that a writ in the nature of mandamus issue commanding the respondents not to give any effect or further effect to the said notices or to any proceedings started thereon or any orders made pursuant to the same. The appeal is allowed, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. SHARMA J.-I agree.
|