Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-1968
Reported in : AIR1969SC701; 72ITR787(SC); 3SCR65
..... chief presidency magistrate, egmore, madras charging the appellant with having committed offences under section 52 of the 1922 act and under section 177 indian penal code in the first three complaints and under section 277 of the indian income tax act, 1961, hereinafter called the 1961 act and under section 177, indian penal code in the fourth complaint petition. in substance the allegation of the ..... wilfully omitted and deliberately suppressed the inclusion of certain sums of money in his income tax returns with a view to evade lawful taxes due to the government. the appellant filed four applications before the chief presidency magistrate ..... first respondent was that the appellant had made a statement in the verification under the income tax act which was false knowing it to be false, and he had .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-15-1968
Reported in : AIR1968All400
..... that by virtue of the provisions of section 32(2) of the u. p. agricultural income tax act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and section 23 of the u. p. large land holdings tax act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1957) these recoveries could not be made as the claims become barred by time. this ..... of a court of any other authority, be reckoned from the date on which the order is withdrawn;(iii) where the date of payment of agricultural income tax has been extended by any authority, be reckoned from the date up to which the time for payment had been extended;provided further that nothing in the ..... ram pratap singh, was the proprietor of the katiyari estate. admittedly he was assessed to agricultural income tax as also to large land holdings tax. a sum of rs. 91,005.69 p. was being recovered from him as arrears of agricultural income tax in respect of the year 1359 f., a sum of rs. 8,140.90 p. ..... of penalty) in respect of the year 1366 f. the total amount of the agricultural income tax that was sought to be recovered from the respondent is rs. 1,04,183.22 p. and that of the large land holdings tax is rs. 41,324.02 p. some amounts were also being recovered from the petitioner ..... be different from the instalments fixed in the notice of demand.7. coming to the demands under the large land holdings tax act, we would like to point out that the proviso to section 23 of that act of 1957 clearly states that 'provided that the processes mentioned in clauses (c),(e), (f) or (h) of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-16-1968
Reported in : 72ITR421(Ker)
..... for the relevant assessment year the assessee filed a return disclosing a loss. it did not disclose as profits under section 10(2)(vii) of the income-tax act, 1922, the sale amount for the building, machinery or plant in excess of the written-down value of the same. that was on the ground that ..... of the movable property did not pass before the transfer of the immovable property. but it was repealed by the sale of goods act. it was held by the supreme court in commissioner of income-tax v. bhurangya coal co.,  34 i.t.r. 802 (s.c.) that, in spite of the repeal, the ..... the sale took place only on august 30, 1957. the income-tax officer found that the sale of the immovable properties took effect from august 30, 1957, and the movable properties from january 1, 1957. consequently, he ..... the signature of the registrar shall be sent to the appellate tribunal as required by section 66(5) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. ..... sale of both movables and immovables took place only on august 30, 1957, and that the profit arising out of such sale was not assessable as income which accrued during the accounting period which ended on june 30, 1957. it was thereafter that, at the instance of the revenue, this reference was ..... narayana pillai, j.1. this is a reference by the income-tax appellate tribunal, madras bench. the assessment year concerned is 1958-59 and the accounting period the 12 months ended on august 30, 1967. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-21-1968
Reported in : AIR1969Kant222; AIR1969Mys222; (1968)2MysLJ581
..... motor vehicles (taxation on passengers and goods) act. 1961. what the privy council observed in that case reads--'the officer is to make an assessment to the ..... must rest upon the consideration of some material which should be gathered and collected by the tax officer.8. what was said by the privy council in c. i. t. v. lakshminarayan badridas, 1937 itr 170 with respect to a best judgment assessment under the income-tax act, is, we think, equally applicable to at best judgment determination under section 6 of the mysore ..... was served on him on 18-6-1964. but he failed to attend the hearing on due date. according to provision of section 6 of the act it is therefore necessary to determine the tax on the basis that the public carrier had covered its full complement during the period.'7. it is plain that that is not how the determination could ..... of fact is not open to discussion in this court.5. but we are of the opinion that the determination made by the tax officer suffers from a fundamentals defect. section 6 of the act confers power on the tax officer to make a best judgment determination in a case where no return has been submitted by the operator, after giving him a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-25-1968
Reported in : AIR1969SC493; (1969)1SCC188; 2SCR896
..... court that the registration of the partnership deed under section 26-a of the indian income tax act, 1922, could not be refused on the ground that k was the benamidar of v. 12. we see nothing in the act which expressly or by implication bars benami transactions or persons owning buses benami and ..... of the amendment. srivastava, j., observed : 'a reference was, however, made to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 60 of the act and on the basis of that clause it was urged that it assumed that the permit holder should be the owner of the vehicle. that clause provides for ..... only by the real owner of the bus. 8. the relevant statutory provisions may now be noticed, and they are as follows : 'the motor vehicles act, 1939 section 2 . (3) 'contract carriage' means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract expressed or ..... permit, to conduct the actual business; there cannot be a more flagrant violation of the basic requirements of the act, or of its scheme.' the high court, accordingly, felt that they could not possibly grant mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to co-operate in any ..... court held that 'the plaintiff and the defendant practised a fraud upon the authorities, conjointly, in contravention of the express provision of the motor vehicles act. the benamidar of the vehicles representing himself to be the owner, falsely obtained the permits in his name and allowed the true owner, who had no .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-03-1968
Reported in : 72ITR766(All)
..... by the supreme court on page 675 that a finding on a question of fact is open to attack under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.4. it is, therefore, necessary to ..... the firm was rs. 62,040-6-3. this was the capital taken over by the new firm from the hindu undivided family. apparently, the income-tax officer experienced no difficulty on the question of extension of the family capital.9. the four persons, who are partners of the new firm, were ..... ?'5. we proceed to answer the question as reframed by us.6. in support of its case of partial partition, the assessee produced the following evidence before the income-tax officer :(1) the partnership deed dated 16th july, 1956 ; (2) the agreement dated 20th august, 1955 ; (3) affidavits of jagram, pragdas, jagdish narain ..... successive appeals of the assessee were dismissed by the appellate assistant commissioner and by the income-tax appellate tribunal, allahabad. at the instance of the assessee, the tribunal has referred to this court the question quoted above.3. whether there was ..... after 17th august, 1955, could not be treated as the business of the assessee family. this contention of the assessee was not accepted by the income-tax officer. he rejected the assessee's case of partial partition. assessment was made on the footing that there had been no partial partition as alleged. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-16-1968
Reported in : AIR1970Mad372; 79ITR60(Mad)
..... of the second proviso to section 34(3) of the income-tax act. 1922.2. the assessee carried on business in ceylon and by an order dated january 30, 1954, he was assessed to tax on a total income of rs. 90,378/-, against the admitted income of rs. 40,378/-. his appeal resulted in enhancement of ..... of 'a finding' the majority in : 52itr335(sc) accepted as correct the earlier view of the allahabad high court in pt. hazari lal v. income-tax officer, kanpur : 39itr265(all) , that is to say, a finding would cover only material questions arising in a particular case for decision by the authority ..... or decided and a decision on a question even though not absolutely necessary or not called for, was a finding. the majority in income-tax officer v. murlidhar bhagwan das : 52itr335(sc) disagreed with both the courts and held:--'a finding, therefore, can be only that which is ..... disposal of the appeal, but also findings which were incidental to it. a full bench of the allahabad high court in lakshman prakash v. commissioner of income-tax : 48itr705(all) considered that the scope of a finding was even wider. the court observed that a finding was nothing but what one found ..... should follow that every step or reason or observation incidental to finding cannot be mistaken for the finding itself,5. in a.s. khader ismail v. income tax officer, salem : 47itr16(mad) this court was inclined to the view that 'a finding' for purposes of the proviso should be given a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-14-1968
Reported in : 72ITR730(Mad)
..... , of the petitioner under section 220(6) of the income-tax act, 1961. on may 17, 1967, the income-tax officer communicated to the petitioner that, having regard to his representation to the commissioner of income-tax on april 9, 1967, in regard to the payment of tax, the income-tax officer was prepared to stay the collection of the tax in dispute in the appeal, if he paid one-half ..... got administrative jurisdiction over all his subordinates. that can enable him only to give such administrative directions as are not prohibited or impliedly forbidden by (he provisions of the act. where an income-tax officer is entrusted with a quasi-judicial function, no direction can be given to him by the commissioner in exercise of his administrative superiority. even if there is such ..... a direction given by the commissioner, however embarrassing it may be for the income-tax officer, it is his statutory duty to consider the question of stay by applying his own uncontrolled mind and express his view which will be embodied in his order. it ..... order he had no alternative but to follow it. our attention has been invited to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit where the position taken up is that, while the income-tax officer would have been the proper authority to be approached for stay, and not the commissioner himself, when once the petitioner approached the commissioner and the latter made an order .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-17-1968
Reported in : 74ITR276(KAR); 74ITR276(Karn)
..... somnath iyer, j.1. this is a reference directed by this court under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee and the question of law which is now before us is whether, on the facts ..... and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate assistant commissioner was justified in law in enhancing the revised figure of income computed by the income-tax officer by a sum of rs. 3,822. the material facts are the case : the assessee was a transport and clearing contractor for ..... relevant period, the income-tax officer determined the income from the transport business to be rs. 6,875 and the income from the lorry business to be rs. 8,600. but in proceedings under section 34 of the act when there was a reassessment of the income, the income-tax officer came to the conclusion that the income format the transport ..... was rs. 4,778. the effect of the reassessment made by the income-tax officer was that the original income for ..... business was rs. 15,525 and that the income from the very lorry business .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-10-1968
Reported in : 73ITR501(All)
..... applications under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961. messrs. ram achal ram sewak, akbarpur, are the assessees. the income-tax officer, faizabad, noticed that the assessees had made deposits in a number of banks from the year 1959-60 to the year 1965-66. these deposits were treated by the income-tax officer as the assessees' income from undisclosed source. assessment was made accordingly ..... was permissible in law. he applied for a reference to the court. the application was dismissed by the tribunal. the commissioner of income-tax, u.p., has, therefore, filed the present applications under section 256(2) of the act.2. the short question raised in the present applications is whether the deposits made by the assessees in various banks from year to ..... decision was upheld in appeal by the appellate assistant commissioner. the assessees filed a number of appeals against the various assessment orders. the connected appeals were disposed of by the income-tax appellate tribunal, allahabad, by a consolidated judgment, dated april 13, 1967. the appeals were allowed with respect to assessment years 1959-60 and 1961-62. it was held that ..... year could be set off against the extra profit added during previous years. in kuppuswami mudaliar v. commissioner of income-tax,  51 i.t.r. 757, it was .....Tag this Judgment!