Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 368 results (0.086 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!

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!

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!

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 08 1956 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i, Bombay Vs. Jagannath Kisonl ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-08-1956

Reported in : [1956]30ITR654(Bom)

..... allowed as a permissible deduction under section 10(2) (xv) or as a business loss. now, the privy council in that case was considering the income-tax act as applicable to canada at the relevant time and what was sought to be deducted was a deduction in respect of disbursements or expenses wholly and necessarily ..... .1. the question that arises on this reference is whether a certain amount is an allowable deduction under section 10(2) (xv) of the income-tax act or in any event it is a business loss which can be deducted for the purpose of ascertaining the true profits of the assessee. 2. ..... the advocate-general drew our attention to the test we ourselves had laid down in this connection in lord's dairy farm ltd. v. commissioner of income-tax. in considering the particular loss with which we were dealing there we suggested that the test that should be applied must be whether the loss was caused ..... decision would have been different. 8. the third decision relied upon by the advocate-general is a decision of the calcutta high court reported in commissioner of income-tax, west bengal v. madan gopal bagla. in that case the assessee, who was a timber merchant, obtained a loan of rs. 1,00,000 from ..... incurred by the assessee in carrying on his money-lending business. that case was considered by the madras high court in a later decision in commissioner of income-tax v. s. r. subramanya pillai. in that case there was a joint borrowing by the assessee, who was a book-seller, with another person and .....

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!

Aug 24 1956 (HC)

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

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-24-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Bom4; (1956)58BOMLR932; ILR1957Bom50

..... of the company for six years prior to its previous year were rs. 50,000/-, 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. income-tax act.2. now, the liquidator distributed rs. 15,000,00/- to the share-holders on 9-9-1952 ..... profits of the company for six previous years preceding the date of liquidation.4. this view of the law was indicated by us in --'haridas achratlal v. commissioner of income-tax', : [1955]27itr684(bom) (a). at page 689 (of itr): (at p. 339 of air), we stated:'the contention of the advocate general is that once ..... took of the law in appavu chettiar v. commissioner of income-tax, madras : [1956]29itr768(mad) (c) and the decision of the madras high court is directly in point because they held that assuming that the ..... and rs. 2,25,000/- on 25-9-1852, 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 ..... held that the surplus assets on liquidation distributed to a share-holder 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 (6-a), income-tax act5. we find that the madras high court has taken the same view as we .....

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 : AIR1957Bom23; (1956)58BOMLR928; ILR1957Bom33

..... made on the assesses as an agent of a non-resident principal was bad in taw on the ground that no notice under section 43, 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 ..... , there is a direct decision of this court reported in -- 'harakchand makanji & co. v. commissioner of income-tax' : [1948]16itr119(bom) (a), 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 he served under section 43 ..... 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 ..... 43 stands on the same footing as section 34. section 43 is procedural, whereas. 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, ..... for whose benefit the condition is required by the legislature. 6. then the third judgment which was referred to is the judgment in -- 'commissioner of income-tax v. ramsukh motila p : air1955bom227 . we were there dealing with notice under section 34 and we said that whereas. section 22 was a procedural section .....

Tag this Judgment!


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