Skip to content


Talluri Raghavaiah Vs. First Additional Income-tax Officer, BapatlA. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 484 of 1959
Reported in[1962]44ITR136(AP)
AppellantTalluri Raghavaiah
RespondentFirst Additional Income-tax Officer, BapatlA.
Excerpt:
- all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5.....ordermay 12, 1959. basi ready j. - the question that falls for determination in this writ petition is whether for purposes of section 34 (1) (a) of the income-tax act, in computing the period of limitation, it is the accounting year or the assessment year that should form the basis. the madras high court has taken the view that it is the assessment year whereas in a recent case the mysore high court has taken the view that it is the accounting year. as this is a question of some importance and may arise frequently, i think it desirable that this question should be decided by a bench. post this writ petition before a bench.
Judgment:
ORDER

May 12, 1959. BASI READY J. - The question that falls for determination in this writ petition is whether for purposes of section 34 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, in computing the period of limitation, it is the accounting year or the assessment year that should form the basis. The Madras High Court has taken the view that it is the assessment year whereas in a recent case the Mysore High Court has taken the view that it is the accounting year. As this is a question of some importance and may arise frequently, I think it desirable that this question should be decided by a Bench. Post this writ petition before a Bench.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //