Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 258 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing S. C. Prashar, Income-Tax ... vs Vasantsen Dwarkadas And Others on 12 December, 1962

M/S Rainbow Colour Lab vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2023

by his uncle Meyappa; on the other hand, his uncle did have the capacity at that time to represent him and, therefore, such proceedings do have a nexus to the affairs of the assessee and such intimate connection thus established would enable the revenue to exercise jurisdiction under the proviso. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the PROviso is violative of article 14 and that this is the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas [[1963] 49 I.T.R. (S.C.) 1.] . In this view, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs, one set. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.
Karnataka High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

M. Ct. Muthuraman vs Second Income-Tax Officer, City Circle ... on 29 April, 1976

We have already held that the petitioner in this case is a person who cannot be characterised as an utter stranger to the earlier proceedings prosecuted by his uncle Meyappa; on the other hand, his uncle did have the capacity at that time to represent him and, therefore, such proceedings do have a nexus to the affairs of the assessee and such intimate connection thus established would enable the revenue to exercise jurisdiction under the proviso. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proviso is violative of article 14 and that this is the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Shantilal Punjabhai on 1 October, 1964

He, therefore, contended that the assessee being not a stranger, the decision of the Supreme Court in Vasantsen's case would not apply, and so far as he is concerned, there would be no constitutional invalidity to the second proviso of section 34(3). It must, however, be borne in mind that there were two separate and distinct assessment proceedings, one in respect of the assessee in his status as an individual and the other in respect of the Hindu undivided family. The assessment proceedings in respect of the assessee, Shantilal, were in respect of his income arising from his self-acquired and separate property. The assessment proceedings against the Hindu undivided family were proceedings against the entire entity, and though the assessee, Shantilal, was a member of that family, the assessment was on the income derived by the Hindu undivided family from the property or business of that Hindu undivided family. In that assessment, the income accruing or arising from the separate property of the assessee, Shantilal, could not be assessed, as the business carried on by the assessee, Shantilal, was not the business of the Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer held that Shantilal was the nominee of the Hindu undivided family, meaning thereby that the business belonged to the Hindu undivided family meaning thereby that the business belonged to the Hindu undivided family, and it was that conclusion of the income-tax Officer which was reversed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal holding that the department had failed to prove that the assessee, Shantilal, was the nominee of the family, in other words, that the income arising from the firm's business was the income of the Hindu undivided family. The direction given by the Tribunal was on the question which was between the department and the Hindu undivided family and the only finding that could be given by the Tribunal was between the two parties, namely, the Hindu undivided family and the department, and not between the department and the assessee, Shantilal, who was not an assessee nor a party to those assessment proceedings. Therefore, if any action had to be taken in consequence of the finding or the direction given by the Tribunal, that action could be taken not against the assessee, Shantilal, but against the Hindu undivided family.
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Ramkrishna Ramnath vs G. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Income-Tax ... on 27 February, 1969

Even as far as the first proposition of Mr. Bobde is concerned, it may, at this stage, be clarified that though at the outset of his argument Mr. Bobde did contend that the second proviso has, in its entirety, been already held to be invalid by the majority of the Supreme Court in the leading case of S. C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas as construed by a Division Bench of this court in the case of M. Bhawanji Thakar v. S. P. Pande, he gave up that stand in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das already referred to above in another context, and in view of the construction placed upon Prashar's case,by a Division Bench of this court in the later case of Onkarmal Meghraj v. Commissioner of Income-tax in which it has been held in the clearest possible terms that in Prashar's case the second proviso was held to be ultra vires only in so far as it affected persons other than those who were parties to the proceedings in which the order of finding was made.
Bombay High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Shantilal Punjabhai on 1 October, 1964

He therefore contended that the assessee being not a stranger the decision of the Supreme Court in Vasantsen's case AIR 1963 SC 1356 would not apply, and so far as he is concerned, there would be no constitutional invalidity to the second proviso of Section 34(3). It must, however, he borne in mind that there were two separate and distinct assessment proceedings, one in respect of the assessee in his status as an individual and the other in respect of the Hindu, undivided family. The assessment proceedings in respect of assessee Shantilal were in respect of his income arising from his self-acquired and separate property. The assessment proceedings against the H. U. F. were proceedings against the entire entity, and though assessee Shantilal was a member of that family the assessment was on the income derived by the H. U. F. from the properly or business of that H. U. F. In that assessment, the income accruing or arising from the separate property of the assessee Shantilal could not be assessed, as the business carried on by the assessee Shantilal was not the business of the H. U. F. The Income-tax Officer held that Shantilal was the nominee of the Hindu undivided family, meaning thereby that the business belonged to the Hindu undivided family, and it was that conclusion of the Income-tax Officer which was reversed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal holding that the Department had failed to prove that the assessee Shantilal was the nominee of the family, in other words, that the income arising from the firm's business was the income of the Hindu undivided family. The direction given by the Tribunal was on the question which was between the Department and the Hindu undivided family and the only finding that could be given by the Tribunal was between the two parties, namely, the Hindu undivided family and the Department, and not between the Department and the assessee Shantilal who was not an assessee nor a party to those assessment proceedings. Therefore, if any action had to he taken in consequence of the finding or the direction given by the Tribunal, that action could be taken not against the assessee Shantilal, but against the H. U. P. It may be that the assessee Shantilal may fall within the scope of the expression "any person" in the second proviso according to the decision of the Supreme Court in (1964) 52 FTR 335: (AIR 1965 SC 342), but. as stated earlier, not as an assessee but as a person other than the assessee who might be affected by the order of the Tribunal. That being so, the assessee Shantilal was not an assessee but a stranger to the proceedings before the Tribunal and consequently, in his case, the second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act cannot be invoked by the revenue
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next