Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 368 results (0.487 seconds)

Sep 13 1956 (HC)

Vishwanath Gopal Oil Mill Vs. S.C. Prashar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-13-1956

Reported in : [1957]32ITR344(Bom)

..... the jurisdiction was challenged beyond time, and on that the petitioners have come before us on this petition. 2. section 64(1) of the income-tax act lays down which income-tax officer has to assess a particular assessee, and sub-section (3) of section 64 provide : 'where any question arises under this section as ..... chagla, c.j.1. respondent no. 1 served a notice upon the petitioners under section 34 of the indian income-tax act dated january 5, 1956. the notice was served on january 13, 1956. by this notice the petitioners were asked to submit ..... question to the commissioner, and what is referred to the commissioner is the determination, again, on merits. therefore, it is clear that if the income-tax officer comes to the conclusion that the objection taken by the assessee is barred by limitation, there is no obligation upon him to refer anything to ..... proviso to section 64(3) is in the following term : 'provided further that if the place of assessment is called in question by an assessee the income-tax officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of claim, refer the matter for determination under this sub-section before assessment is made.' 9. therefore, ..... palkhivala's contention is sound, the objection to the jurisdication has been taken beyond time. admittedly, the letter of the petitioners challenging the jurisdiction of the income-tax officer reached him on march 31, 1956, two days beyond the extended that the relevant date for this purposee is not march 31, 1956, but march .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1956 (HC)

Vishwanath Gopal Oil Mill Vs. S.C. Prashar and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-13-1956

Reported in : AIR1958Bom459; (1957)59BOMLR1; ILR1957Bom157

..... the jurisdiction was challenged beyond time, and on that the petitioners have come before us on this petition.2. section 64(1) of the income tax act lays down which income-tax officer has to assess a particular assessee, and sub-section (3) of section 64 provides:''where any question arises under this section as to ..... chagla, c.j.1. the first respondent served a notice upon the petitioners under section 34 of the indian income tax act dated 5-1-1956. the notice was served on 13-1-1956. by this notice the petitioners were asked to submit their ..... question to the commissioner, and what is referred to the commissioner is the determination, again, on merits. therefore, it is clear that if the income-tax officer comes to the conclusion that the objection taken by the assessee is barred by limitation there is no obligation upon him to refer anything to the ..... proviso to section 64(3) is in the following terms:'provided further that if the place of assessment is called in question by an assessee the income-tax officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under this sub-section before assessment is made'.therefore, ..... palkhivala's contention is sound the objection to the jurisdiction has been taken beyond time. admittedly, the letter of the petitioners challenging the jurisdiction of the income-tax officer reached him on 31-3-1956, two days beyond the extended time, and in order to get over this difficulty mr. palkhivala has contended that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1956 (HC)

Jadavji Narshidas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City- ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-23-1956

Reported in : [1957]31ITR1(Bom)

..... made on the assessee as an agent of a nonresident principal was bad in law on the ground that no notice under section 43 of the income-tax act was served upon him. the assessee submitted a return as the agent of the non-resident principal. it also appears that a notice under section ..... has been placed, there is a direct decision of this court reported in harakchand makanji and co. v. commissioner of income-tax, where we held that though the scheme of the income-tax act was that the assessment for each year was self-contained and therefore all notices should be served under section 43 in ..... and section 43 will be apparent. section 34 makes the service of the notice a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the income-tax officer to tax income which has escaped assessment. the language of that section makes that clear, and it is only when a notice has been made a condition ..... 43 stands on the same footing as section 34. section 43 is procedural, where as section 34 is a section dealing with the jurisdiction of the income-tax officer and lays down the conditions which have got to be complied with before that jurisdiction can be assumed. 7. in our opinion, therefore, ..... the answer to this question must depend upon whether the notice under section 43 is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the income-tax officer for the purpose of assessing the assesses as an agent of non-resident principal. the question answers itself when one looks at sections 42 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1956 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City Vs. Shirinbai K. Kooka

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-06-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Bom586; (1956)58BOMLR709; ILR1956Bom693; [1956]30ITR753(Bom)

..... the real nature of the transaction and the basis on which the profits of the assessee should be subjected to tax. the department has assessed her under section 10(2) of the income-tax act and has contended that the profits constituted her business profits.now, she started her business from 1-4-1945, ..... prior to that she had no business at all, and the profits which can be taxed in the hands of the assessee are profits ..... observes:'so all things considered, i do not think that we ought to treat the respondent's general proposition as precluding the possibility that the income-tax scheme may be found to require that, in certain situations, a taxpayer should be treated as if he had dealt with himself on commercial terms ..... 'for we are required to assume, what those decisions in effect denied, that the activities to which the accounts relate do constitute a trade for income-tax purposes; and our problem is to determine what, on that basis, are the proper entries to make in those trading accounts in relation to certain ..... us in this reference should have really presented no difficulty but for a recent decision of the supreme court reported in 'kikabhai premchand v. commr. of income-tax' : [1954]1scr219 , which has been very strenuously relied upon by the advocate general as supporting his contention.the assessee who is a woman purchased .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1956 (HC)

Sriniwas and Ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer 'A' Ward, Sitapur

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-29-1956

Reported in : AIR1956All657

..... of the constitution, the circumstances in which it has been filed being shortly as follows :2. on 31-3-1955, the respondent, who is the income-tax officer, a ward, sitapur, issued two notices under section 34, income-tax act, to the petitioners who are five in number. the address of the petitioners was given in each of these notices as being care of messrs ..... fit case in which a writ in the nature of prohibition should issue directing him to refrain from proceeding further with the contemplated assessment of the petitioners under section 34, income-tax act, and we direct accordingly.20. the petitioners are entitled to their costswhich we assess at rs. 200/-. ..... using the word 'issue' in place of the word 'serve'. it must be remembered that between 1922, when the present act came into force, and 1948, when for the second time section 34 was substantially changed, the obligation on the income-tax officer was to serve on and not merely to issue a notice to the person liable to payment.16. section 34 ..... . pushkar mal sagar mal, nai bazar, lakhimpur kheri, within this state.the notices (which were the same in form) stated that the respondent had reason to believe that the. income of the petitioners assessable to income-tax for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1956 (HC)

M. Ayyasami Nadar and Bros., Colombo Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-01-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Mad74; [1956]30ITR565(Mad)

..... rajagopala ayyangar, j.1. these are petitions under section 66(2) of the income-tax act invoking our jurisdiction to direct the appellate tribunal to state a case and refer a question of law to this court for its decision. ..... assessee was examined before the officer on 26-11-1945 and he conceded that the return originally submitted was wrong and consented to certain additions to his income. the income-tax officer took action under section 28(1)(c) and issued notice under section 28(3) and when the assessee defaulted to appear in response thereto ..... sending his explanation, or being present in person while showing cause. where the assessee sends his explanation by post the income-tax officer may or may not apply his mind to that explanation and impose the penalty none the less; it the officer does so, he clearly of ..... heard.' so far we are in agreement. the judgment continued:'a person may show cause in writing without being present out it is obligatory on the income-tax officer to hear him or give him an opportunity of being heard, it should also be noticed that the assessee has been given the option of either ..... imposed on him penalties for concealing the particulars of his income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of the same within section 28(1)(c) of the act.3. the imposition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1956 (HC)

T.M.M. Mudalai Nadar and Co., Virudhunagar Vs. the Commissioner of Inc ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-27-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Mad130

..... the assessee after the necessary scrutiny. when the assesses appealed to the tribunal, it confirmed the assessment.5. the question referred to this court under section 66(1) of the income-tax act was:'whether the sum of rs. 36094 being the re-fund of indian excise duty oh betel nuts importedfrom travancore state, was assessable as profits of the accounting period for ..... expended; that the original price for the goods having been reduced by agreement, the price actually paid and not the original price was the amount of the deduction allowable for income-tax purposes; and that the account to 30-6-1921 should be opened up and the deduction should be brought into conformity with the amount actually paid.'that contention was negatived ..... income-tax and excess profits tax.'6. it was not disputed that the excise dutythe assessee had paid in the year of account tothe government of india wasreflected in the pricesthe assessee charged his customers ..... .1. for the assessment year 1946-47, the period from 16-8-1944 to 16-8-1945 was the accounting year or the assessee for, income-tax and was also the chargeable accounting period for excess profits tax.the assesses firm traded in arecanut with its head office at virudhunagar witnin the taxable territories. the assessee obtained imports of arecanut from the travaacore .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 1956 (HC)

Girdhardas and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-24-1956

Reported in : [1957]31ITR82(Bom)

..... that the surplus assets on liquidation distributed to a shareholder were not liable to income-tax. we also pointed out that it was because of this decision that the legislature incorporated sub-clause (c) in section 2 (6a) of the income-tax act. 7. we find that the madras high court has taken the same ..... company for six years prior to its previous year were rs. 50,500, and the income-tax officer in computing its profits also included a sum of rs. 21,142 which was a notional profit under section 23a of the income-tax act. 2. now, the liquidator distributed rs. 15,00,000 to the shareholders on ..... view as we took of the law in t. appavu chettiar v. commissioner of income-tax and the decision of the madras high court is directly in point because ..... six previous years preceding the date of liquidation. 6. this view of the law was indicated by us in sheth haridas achratlal v. commissioner of income-tax. at page 689 we stated : 'the contention of the advocate-general is that once the company goes into liquidation the duty of the liquidator is ..... the 9th september, 1952, and rs. 2,25,000 on the 25th september, 1952, and the question that arose was whether in making this distribution he had distributed rs. 98,000 as part of the dividend of the company which was liable to tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1956 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. A.D. Shroff

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-02-1956

Reported in : [1957]31ITR284(Bom)

..... the 16th of march, 1953, and in this order of re-assessment the income of the assessee from his business in shares was taken rs. 1,11,271. it appears that the ..... assessee under section 34, and the notice dealt with certain notional income which was sought to be added to the income of the assessee in respect of dividends of certain company of which the assessee was a director. the dividends were notional dividends under the provisions of section 23a of the income-tax act. the order of re-assessment under section 34 was passed on ..... by the assessee, viz., rs. 54,474, is not necessarily the correct adjustment. but it was the duty of the income-tax officer, acting under section 34, to have got figure adjusted before he passed his final assessment order, viz., to direct the income-tax officer to give effect to the original assessment order by adjusting the figure of rs. 1,11,271 in accordance ..... that certain items may come up for consideration in those proceedings. but what mr. palkhivala says, and rightly says, is that when the income-tax officer under section 34 ignores a direction given by the income-tax officer when making the original order and acts contrary to that direction, he has a right of appeal to the appellate assistant commissioner against the action of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1956 (HC)

Madhavlal Sindhoo Vs. V.R. Idurkarand anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-05-1956

Reported in : [1956]30ITR332(Bom)

..... conclusion reached by me is that there was usurpation of jurisdiction by the first respondent which is apparent on the face of the notice read with section 34 of the income-tax act, this case must fall in the last category stated above. therefore, in my opinion, although a writ of prohibition cannot go as a matter or right it should in the ..... income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1944-45 had escaped assessment and therefore it was proposed to reassess the ..... notice since he had always been assessed at calcutta. another notice dated 19th march, 1953, was served on the petitioner under the same section of the income-tax act. by that notice, the income-tax officer, calcutta, called upon the petitioner to submit his return of his total income for the same assessment year, viz., 1944-45. the petitioner submitted his return under protest to the ..... writ in a matter arising under the income-tax act. the facts leading up to this petition are not in dispute and i shall state them succinctly. 2. the petitioner was served with a notice dated 23rd march, 1949, under section 34 of the indian income-tax act by the income-tax officer, calcutta. it was stated in the notice the income-tax officer had reasons to believe that the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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