Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1968 Page 1 of about 30 results (0.064 seconds)

Aug 13 1968 (HC)

Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-13-1968

Reported in : [1969]73ITR192(P& H)

..... the fact that the assessee had not kept any register from day to day about the consumption of raw cotton and production of ginned cotton, the income-tax authorities applied the proviso to section 13 of the income-tax act. it was held by this court that there was sufficient material in the case for invoking the provisions of the proviso to section 13. in ..... had been mostly purchased by the assessee-firm during the months of october to december, 1957, when the paddy was highly moist. the income-tax officer applied the proviso to section 13 of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (hereinafter called the act), and after rejecting the accounts of the assessee-firm, determined the yield of rice as 26 seers per maund of paddy, thereby adding ..... profits on other basis and not for the assessee to prove that his method of accounting ought not to be rejected. in that case, the income-tax authorities had applied the proviso to section 13 of the indian income-tax act on the ground that the assessee had not maintained a variety-wise stock register, as a result of which, the stock position could not ..... question of law arose out of its order. in cases involving the applicability of the proviso to section 13 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, the question to be determined by the income-tax officer was a question of fact, namely, whether the income, profits and gains could or could not be properly deduced from the method of accounting regularly adopted by the assessee. there .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 1968 (HC)

S.P. Jaiswal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-10-1968

Reported in : [1969]73ITR179(P& H)

..... has been filed by shri s. p. jaiswal (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) under section 66(3) of the income-tax act, 1922 (hereinafter called the 1922 act), read with section 256 of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 act), and under article 227 of the constitution. the only facts which are necessary to be noticed for deciding this application are ..... has referred to the following passage in the division bench judgment of the calcutta high court in kalawati devi harlalka v. commissioner of income-tax, [1966] 62 i.t.r. 544 :' the word 'assessment' has been used in the income-tax act in a comprehensive sense. the expression ' proceedings for the assessment' in section 297(2)(a) has a wide connotation and embraces within ..... 297. the relevant extract from that section is quoted below:' (1) the indian income-tax act, 1922, is hereby repealed,(2) notwithstanding the repeal of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the repealed act) -- (a) where a return of income has been filed before the commencement of this act by any person for any assessment year, proceedings for the assessment of that person for ..... word ' assessment ' in the said phrase has been used in its widest connotation and in a very comprehensive sense so as to include therein all possible proceedings under the income-tax act or the finance act relating to assessment up to the stage after which nothing remains to be done in connection with the assessment and computation of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1968 (HC)

Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd., Amritsar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-01-1968

Reported in : AIR1968P& H476

..... was taxable in the assessment year 1953 54?' (2)whether we rightly held that provisions at section 13 of the income-tax act, 1922, did not control the repealed section 16 (2) and that :he disputed dividend was taxable in the assessment year 1953-54 irrespective of the ..... bahadur, j.1. the twoquestions which have been referred to this court under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the income-tax act. 1922 (hereinafter called the act) are these-'(1) whether on the facts and in the circum stances of the case, we rightly held that the disputed dividend ..... the dividend was declared in the annual general meeting, has not been approved by their lordships of the supreme court in j. dalmia v. commissioner of income-tax, delhi : [1964]53itr83(sc) mr justice shah, as the spokesman of the supreme court in dalmia's case observed that the test applied by chief ..... section 13 allows an assessee to compute his gains. profits and income according to the method adopted by him in the maintenance of accounts. the tax on dividend, however, is payable in accordance with the requirements of section 16 (2) of the act. it follows that the mere acceptance by the department of the ..... previous returns of the assessee in which the dividend income had been shown as in the assessment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 1968 (HC)

Raj Singh Baldev Kishan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-06-1968

Reported in : [1969]72ITR735(P& H)

..... or revenue expenditure in which latter event only it would be a deductible allowance under section 10(2)(xv) of the income-tax act. the question has all long been considered to be a question of fact to be determined by the income-tax authorities on an application of the broad principles laid down above and the courts of law would not ordinarily interfere with ..... the lease was for agricultural purposes, and, therefore, it was an asset of an enduring nature. this contention he cannot be allowed to raise at this stage. neither before the income-tax officer, the appellate assistant commissioner nor the tribunal, this was the department's case. it was precisely for this reason that we set out the statement of the case. the ..... expense and the remaining nine-tenth was to be distributed in the remaining nine years. on the assessee's appeal, the appellate assistant commissioner came to the conclusion that the income-tax officer was wrong in allowing one-tenth as revenue expenditure.6. according to the appellate assistant commissioner, the entire expenditure was of a capital nature. the assessee, who was dissatisfied ..... appellate assistant commissioner, he held that the expenditure ranked as capital and accordingly disallowed the entire claim to the tune of rs. 5,934. copies of the orders of the income-tax officer dated february 13, 1962, and that of the appellate assistant commissioner dated july 27, 1962, are annexed herewith as annexures 'b' and 'c' respectively and form part of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1968 (HC)

R.N. Oswal Hosiery and Mahabir Wollen Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-28-1968

Reported in : AIR1969P& H8

..... to that conclusion they had applied the principle of ordinary civil law. chief justice chagla was at pains to point out that a firm was a taxable unit under the income-tax act, while it was not so under the ordinary civil law. whether the business was one or separate was a question of fact which could only be determined by the tribunal ..... has taken of the law and we are of the opinion, that there is nothing in law to preclude common partners constituting two separate firms for the purpose of the income-tax act. whether there are two firms or only one firm is a question of fact which can only be determined by the tribunal itself.'the emphasis, according to chief justice chagla ..... bengal v. a.w. figgis and company : [1953]24itr405(sc) . mahajan j. (later, chief justice mahajan observed in the judgment after stating this position:'but under the income-tax act the position is somewhat different. a firm can be charged as a distinct assessable entity as distinct from its partners who can also be assessed individually.'for this conclusion, the ..... constitute two separate firms in respect of different businesses carried on by these partners for the purpose of the indian income-tax act?'the same bench of chief justice chagla and tendolkar j. reaffirmed the same legal position in jeshinghbhai ujamshi v. commissioner of income-tax, bombay : [1955]28itr454(bom) . the tribunal had been repeating the view of chief justice beaumont in : [1946]14itr272(bom .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1968 (HC)

S.S. Atwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-08-1968

Reported in : AIR1968P& H371

..... , j. 1. this is a reference under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the patiala income-tax act, 2001 (no. 8 of 2001), hereinafter referred to as the act, by the commissioner of income-tax. patiala (who under the act, discharges the same functions as the income-tax appellate tribunal under the indian income-tax act. 1922), at the instance of the assessee, s. s. atwal, legal representative, for and on ..... necessary for the assessment for that year, and in this connection reference is made to the interpretation of section 34 (1) (a) of the income-tax act. 1922, as contained in the leading case of calcutta discount co., ltd. v. income-tax officer, companies district i, calcutta : [1961]41itr191(sc) . their lordships of the supreme court held that the duty of the assessee was to ..... be referred to. in this connection the learned counsel for the assessee referred to bhanji bagawandas v. commissioner of income-tax, madras : [1968]67itr18(sc) , in which appears the observation of the supreme court that all that section 66 (1) of the income-tax act requires is that the question of law which is referred to the high court and which the high court is ..... at the time of the original assessment. with reference to section 34 (1) of the act (which in relevant respects is pari materia with section 34 (1) (a) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (no. 11 of 1922)), it is pointed out that jurisdiction of the income-tax officer to reopen the assessment arises only if-(a) an assessee has omitted or failed to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1968 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Col. H.H. Raja Sir Harinder Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-05-1968

Reported in : [1969]73ITR433(P& H)

..... be clear if we refer to the following contention of mr. palkbivala : ' that he (the assessee) was not liable to income-tax for the assessment year 1950-51 on the ground that, under the indian income-tax act, income-tax was charged on the assessee's income received during the accounting year and that as during the accounting year the assessee was a ruling chief, he was exempt ..... ') has stated the following question of law for our opinion :' whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was not liable to tax under the indian income-tax act, 1922, in respect of his personal income accruing or arising to him in british india in the two assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 '2. the assessee was the ruler of the ..... the conclusion that the status of an indian ruler couldnot be equated with that of a sovereign; and it was further held thatthe private income of such a ruler was not exempt from taxation under theindian income-tax act, when that income had been earned in britishindia. 9. the third contention of mr. puri was that in the supreme court case, the dispute related to ..... of opinion between the judicial member and the accountant member. the judicial member differed from the conclusion of the appellate assistant commissioner of income-tax and held that no assessment could be made on the appellant under the indian income-tax act, as he was the ruler of a sovereign state during the assessment years under consideration. the accountant member took the contrary view on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1968 (HC)

H.H. Raja Sir Harindar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-01-1968

Reported in : [1969]73ITR236(P& H)

..... diplomatic enclave, new delhi, by rs. 1,800 under the first proviso to section 9(2) of the income-tax act, 1922, notwithstanding the fact that the annual letting value of the faridkot house situated at lytton road, new delhi, is already reduced by rs. 1,800. 2. in order to ..... have, under the terms of the trust deed dated the 1st april, 1955, been rightly included in the hands of the assessee under section 16(3)(b) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 ? (ii) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the reduction of the annual letting value of the faridkot house in ..... -60 and 1960-61, respectively, could not be added to his income. the income-tax officer rejected the said contention and added these incomes in the assessee's case in the respective years under section 16(3)(b) of the income-tax act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the act). the assessee had also contended before the income-tax officer that separate deduction of rs. 1,800 should be allowed ..... in respect of both his properties in new delhi under the first proviso to section 9(2) of the act. the income-tax officer reduced the annual letting value of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1968 (HC)

S. Ram Singh Uppal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-27-1968

Reported in : [1969]71ITR609(P& H)

..... effect is a mere irregularity. support is sought for this proposition from the form of notice under section 34 reproduced at page 942 of sampath iyengars indian income-tax act (4th edition), volume ii. there is a note in this form to this effect :'this notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the commissioner ..... the following question has been referred to us under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (hereinafter called the act), by the income-tax appellate tribunal, delhi :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made by the income-tax officer, special circle, amritsar, in pursuance of the notice under section 34(1)(a) issued by ..... amritsar, on 25th of april, 1949. some time thereafter, the commissioner of income-tax transferred the assessment proceedings under sub-section (7a) of section 5 of the act to the income-tax officer, special investigation circle, amritsar. this provision empowers the commissioner of income-tax to 'transfer any case from one income-tax officer subordinate to him to another', at any stage of the proceedings. ..... on 9th of march, 1956, the income-tax officer, special circle, issued notice to the assessee under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1968 (HC)

R. N. Oswal Hosiery and Mahabir Woollen Mills Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-28-1968

Reported in : [1968]70ITR843(P& H)

..... to the conclusion they had applied the principle of ordinary civil law. chief justice chagla was at pains to point out that a firm was a taxable unit under the income-tax act, while it was not so under the ordinary civil law. whether the business was one or separate was a question of fact which could only be determined by the tribunal ..... has taken of the law and we are of the opinion, that there is nothing in law to preclude common partners constituting two separate firms for the purpose of the income-tax act. whether there are two firms or only one firm is a question of fact which can only be determined by the tribunal itself.'the emphasis, according to chief justice chagla ..... constitute two separate firms in respect of different businesses carried on by these partners for the purpose of the indian income-tax act ?'the same bench of chief justice chagla and tendolkar j. reaffirmed the same legal position in jeshinghbhai ujamshi v. commissioner of income-tax. here again the reference was necessitated, according to chief justice chagla, by a misapprehension on the part of the ..... to describe its partners, is a well-known proposition and was reiterated by the supreme court in commissioner of income-tax v. a. w. figgies and company. mahajan j. (later chief justice) observed in the judgement after stating this position :'but under the income-tax act the position is somewhat different. a firm can be charged as a distinct assessable entity as distinct from its .....

Tag this Judgment!


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