9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (7) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax, Lucknow, and another. The respondent is one K. S. Rashid. He is ex-parte. The said K. S. Rashid is one of the partners in a Arm, M/s. K. S. Rashid & Sons. He held one-third share in that firm. For the assessment year 1947-1948, the relevant accounting year being 1946-1947, he was assessed on November 15,1949. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that in the concerned assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Meerut, passed an order under section 35(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, holding that for the year 1947-48 the petitioner was liable to pay tax upon a net income of Rs. 2,08,277. A further order was made but there is no need to refer to that order because that order either stands or falls with the assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -existing law, nor a matter relating to procedure, but affects vested rights, and must be deemed to have come into force only from 1st April, 1952. It has no greater retrospective effect than has been expressly granted to it and the power conferred by the said clause to rectify the assessment of a partner of a firm by including or correcting the share of the profit or loss of the firm can, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llah's case, and extending the ratio of the decision that the revenue had no competence to carry out the rectification in question. The correctness of the decision in Habibillah's case, as well as in Atmala Nagaraj's case, came up for consideration before five judges Bench of this court in Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin v. T. S. Devinatha Nadar This court by a majority upheld the decision in Habi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
