Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.61 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Indo-Aden Salt Works Co. on 28 October, 1958

Ranbir Rajkapor vs Wealth-Tax Officer on 9 February, 1988

3.2 In this context, Shri Dastur referred us to a decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Indo-Aden Salt Works Co. [1959] 36 ITR 429. In that case, the ITO allowed the claim of a firm for relief under Section 25(4) on the ground that there was a succession, only so far it related to income-tax but declined to grant any relief in respect of super-tax as super-tax had not been paid by the firm either for 1920-21 or for 1921-22. The firm appealed to the AAC and the only point raised was that relief in respect of super-tax was wrongly denied. The AAC, without going into merits of the case dismissed the appeal on the ground that a registered firm not being an assessable entity could not claim such relief as regards super-tax. On further appeal, the Tribunal reversed the order of the AAC and directed the AAC to deal with the assessee's claim for relief in respect of super-tax on merits. It vacated the AAC's order and restored the appeal with a direction that it be disposed of on its merits. When the matter went back to the AAC, he not only inquired into the facts relating to super-tax relief but went further, suo motu, into the question whether there was a discontinuance of the business earlier in 1933 and held that there was such discontinuance and therefore no relief could be granted to the assessee under Section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act. On these facts, the Bombay High Court held that the order of the Appellate Tribunal, when read in the proper context, restricted the scope of enquiry by the AAC only to the question of merits affecting the claim of the assessee for relief from super-tax and, therefore, the AAC had no jurisdiction to issue the notice of enhancement and to withdraw the relief in respect of income-tax granted by the ITO under Section 25(4). Deriving support from this judgment, Shri Dastur argued that the directions of the CWT (Appeals) were specific and the orders passed consequent to such directions by the WTO had restricted scope and could not be revised by the CWT under Section 25(2) of the WT Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Ii vs Nanalal Tribhovandas And Anr. on 12 September, 1973

11. In view of these conclusions we are not referring to the authorities relied upon by Mr. Kaji in support of his contention that the Income-tax Officer, after the order of remand of September 12, 1959, could only act within the four corners of the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on September 12, 1959. The three authorities which Mr. Kaji relied upon in support of this contention were : (1) P. Subba Rao & Co. v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which was a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court; (2) decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indo-Aden Salt Works Co. and (3) the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devidayal Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. In our opinion, the question which arises for our consideration is totally different from the questions which arose before the different High Courts in the three decisions relied upon by Mr. Kaji and, therefore, we follow the principle laid down by the Madras High Court in the two decisions referred to above.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Katihar Jute Mills (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central A) on 29 November, 1977

17. Mr. Sen Gupta in support of his above contention relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Indo-Aden Salt Works Co. [1959] 36 ITR 429. The main question, however, in that case was as to the grant of relief asked for by the assessee in respect of super-tax. In the assessment, the ITO declined to grant any relief in respect of supertax. There was an appeal to the AAC by the assessee and the only point which was raised and urged by the assessee before him, was that relief in respect of super-tax had wrongly been denied to it. The AAC did not go into the merits of the question but dismissed the appeal on some other ground. He held that a registered firm not being an assessable entity quoad super-tax could not claim any such relief. At that time, he did not pass any order for enhancement of the assessment as was subsequently done by another officer who heard another appeal as the AAC. The only order that he passed in the appeal was that the appeal was dismissed. The matter was carried to the Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the decision of the AAC. The counsel for the assessee before the Tribunal requested the Tribunal not to dispose of the question about the super-tax as the assessee wanted to lead certain evidence before the AAC in the matter of the claim relating to super-tax. The material part of the order of the Tribunal was as under :
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Siemens (India) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 28 May, 1976

12. The second aspect of the matter, however, is that in the order of the Commissioner, the Commissioner has not, in my opinion, set aside the appellate order in its entirety. He has only gone into the question relating to the claim of Rs. 68.518-.17. When the Commissioner says that "the impugned appellate order will hence be set aside", in my opinion, the Commissioner means the appellate order dealing with that portion of the order which deals with the claim of Rs. 68,518.17. Where the Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner "to pass fresh order in accordance with law after verifying the details of the sales" he was dealing with the sales covered by the claim of Rs. 68,518.17. The Commissioner has not indicated any ground as to the claim for disallowance of the claim of Rs. 49,82,246.90. To consider the question how to deal with an order of this type, reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-I v. Indo-Aden Salt Works Co, [1959] 36 I.T.R. 429 at 435 and in the case of Pulipati Subbarao & Co. v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vijayawada [1959] 35 I.T.R. 673 at 675.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate ... vs P.R. Joglekar Dy. Commr. Of Agrl. Inc. ... on 21 March, 1986

In this regard, we may refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Indo-Aden Salt Works Co. [1959] 36 ITR 429. In that case, for the assessment year 1950-51, the Income-tax Officer allowed the claim of the assessee firm for relief under section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the ground that there was a succession only in so far as it related to income-tax but declined to grant any relief in respect of super-tax as super-tax had not been paid by firm either for 1920-21 or 1921-22. The appeal preffered by the assessee firm to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed without going into the merits on the ground that the firm was not registered. On a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal reversed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but, on the request of counsel for the firm not to dispose of the question about super-tax as the assessee wanted to lead certain evidence before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in that regard, the Tribunal passed an order, the relevant portion of which ran as follows :
Bombay High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 15 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1   2 Next