Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: guwahati Year: 1968 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.019 seconds)

Feb 09 1968 (HC)

Maud Tea and Seed Company Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ...

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Feb-09-1968

..... under that act to prescribe the proportions of income from business, and income from agriculture in the entire ..... of the income-tax act and has effect as if enacted in that act. when section 59 of the income-tax act provides for the rules made ..... this definition, one has to look to the definition of ' agricultural income' in the income-tax act and not to the rules made thereunder. we do not agree. 'agricultural income' as defined in the constitution means ' agricultural income for the purpose of the enactments relating to income-tax'. one such enactment is the income-tax act. rule 24 of the income-tax rules has been made under the powers conferred by section 59 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1968 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sabitri Devi Agarwalla

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Aug-29-1968

..... and 1961-62 were not validly served on the assessee. (2) the tribunal was not right in holding that the proceedings under section 33b of the indian income-tax acts 1922, and section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961, were invalid and illegal. (3) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in refusing to direct the commissioner ..... , therefore, is answered in the affirmative. 15. regarding the second question whether the tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings under section 33b of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961, were invalid and illegal, it is sufficient to state that the proceedings which had commenced on the commissioner taking action under section 33b cannot be vitiated ..... commissioner to pass fresh orders under section 33b of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961, after giving the assessee a further opportunity of being heard ?' 2. the facts material for coming to a decision on the above questions may be ..... the answer to question no. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether the tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings under section 33b of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and section 263 of the income-tax act, 1961, were invalid and illegal ? (3) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in refusing to direct the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1968 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kedarmall Keshardeo

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Feb-20-1968

..... , however, we have already held that the minor has not been admitted into the partnership under the terms of this deed, there is no breach of any provisions under the income-tax act or the rules, and this decision cannot be of any avail to the department.14. the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to a decision of the ..... the recitals of the document that the minor was also admitted into the partnership, and hence cannot be deemed to be a partner under section 2(6b) of the indian income-tax act.12. the learned counsel next draws our attention to the following observations of their lordships of the supreme court in the case of n.t. patel and co. v. commissioner ..... it does not render a minor a competent and full partner. for that purpose, the law of partnership must be considered, apart from the definition in the income-tax act. section 30 of the partnership act clearly lays down that a minor cannot become a partner, though with the consent of the adult partners, he may be admitted to the benefits of partnership. any ..... to this question, therefore, must be in the affirmative in that the commissioner had jurisdiction under section 33b of the indian income-tax act, 1922, to dispose of the matter even after the repeal of the said act by section 297(1) of the income-tax act, 1961.4. the first two questions turn on the interpretation of the deed of partnership dated february 25, 1953. it .....

Tag this Judgment!


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