Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Satinder Kumar (H.U.F.) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 January, 1976

Income Tax Officer vs Sadhu Ram Gupta Steels on 28 November, 1997

In the case of Satinder Kumar (HUF) vs. CIT (supra), referred to in the order of the Dy. CIT(A), although not cited before us by learned counsel for the respondent, the facts were to the effect that the assessee was an HUF, whose 'Karta' was a partner in a firm and the share income thereof was assessed in the hands of the HUF. The assessment year concerned was 1963-64 and on 14th January, 1966, the Karta and some others started a partnership firm doing the same business as the firm in which the Karta was a partner. For asst. yrs. 1967-68 and 1968-69, the HUF filed returns showing loss from the new firm. Later on, however, the HUF filed a revised return for asst. yr. 1968-69, in which the share income from the new firm was omitted and, instead, the said share income was included in the return filed by the Karta of the HUF in his individual status. It may be mentioned that the said share income was also shown in the returns of the individual for asst. yrs. 1969-70 and 1970-71. The ITO accepted the stand in the individual case but the Addl. CIT acting under s. 263 passed an order for asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1970-71 holding that the share income from the firm was to be included in the assessments of the HUF. Further appeals to the Tribunal were dismissed and the Tribunal observed that as the business of the Karta prior to joining the new firm was the same as that of the earlier firm and the modus operandi was also the same as also the location and the principal place of the business, the same must be treated as an extension of the business carried on by the family. The Tribunal also relied on the circumstances that the Karta had earlier treated the business as that of the assessee family. It was in the aforesaid circumstances that their Lordships of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh took the view that if the income from a source/property was assessed as the income of the HUF in one assessment year, it was still open to the assessee in a subsequent year to prove that the income did not belong to the family but to the assessee as an individual. The observation of their Lordships, reproduced by the Dy. CIT(A) in his appellate order, was made in the light of the aforesaid facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Kalindee Rail Nirman (Engineers) Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 September, 2002

This is a view which has been taken by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Satinder Kumar v. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 64 (HP) at p. 72. In any event, even if it is assumed that the letter dt. 9th Sept., 1998, can be termed as an admission, the same has to be treated as having been given under a mistaken understanding in view of the fact that the assessee had alternatively contended that higher rate of profit cannot be applied and from that fact alone, it cannot be concluded that the assessee has agreed to be assessed at a net profit rate of 11 per cent. It, therefore, has to be seen whether the rate of 11 per cent is appropriate or otherwise more in the light of the fact and circumstance that when the assessee was throughout contending that the books of account maintained by it do not suffer from any infirmity and deserve acceptance of the declared book result. Besides explanation of the assessee on various seized material and documents having been furnished to the AO all the receipts of the assessee are from Indian Railways and credited through bank channels in its books of account. No part of these receipts are from any other source, other than the contracts from the Railway. Notings and jottings were found duly explained which were also stated to have been covered by the application of the profit rate in the counterproposal of the assessee. The AO's thus making a separate addition of Rs. 13,34,308 on account of notings and jottings in its books, goes to show that the offer was conditional and the AO himself has not given effect to the offer. As the AO himself did not accept the offer, the same cannot be regarded as an estoppel, which in law cannot be so regarded. The assessee was, therefore, entitled to appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs S.V. Anandmohan Nandyal on 22 July, 1986

In Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [1971] 106 ITR 64 (HP) the facts were that the assessee was a HUF. S was its karta. He was a partner in the firm R carrying on business in Lower Bazar, Simla, from the assessment year 1963-64. On 14-1-1966 S along with some others started another partnership firm V at Lower Bazar. Simla, itself and began doing the same business as that of the firm R for the assessment years 1967-1968 and 1968-69. The assessee-firm returned losses derived from the firm V. However, for assessment year 1968-69 the HUF filed a revised return in which the share income derived by S from the firm V was omitted. The said share income derived by S from the firm V was included in his individual return for assessment year 1968-69 and also in the returns for 1969-70 and 1970-71, the ITO accepted individual returns of S. The Addl. CIT wanted to revise the orders of the ITO under Section 269. In the reference to the High Court it was held that the mere circumstance that S was the karta of the assessee-family and at the same time a partner in a firm would not lead to a presumption that he represented the assessee family in the partnership firm. If a karta declares that he is acting for himself alone, no such presumption can be raised. Whether he is acting for himself alone or on behalf of family is a matter governed by very different considerations. If he does not claim to act on behalf of the assessee, there must be clear and definite material, if the contrary is to be proved, linking the family with the business carried on by the karta.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Federal Bank Ltd. vs The State Of Kerala And Ors. on 24 May, 1994

Satinder Kumar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1977) 106 ITR 64 at page 72 (HP). Thus while an admission made by an assessee is relevant, it is not conclusive. It is open to the assessee to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made, or to prove that what was stated did not reflect the true state of affairs. But in the absence of any demur or explanation therefor, an admission is almost conclusive regarding the facts contained therein.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Deo Narayan Bhadani And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 April, 1986

30. It has been held in the case of Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 64 (HP), that if a karta does not claim to act on behalf of the family, there must be clear and definite material, if the contrary is to be proved, linking the family with the business carried on by the karta and the circumstance that the karta has commenced a business of the same character or in the same commodity as the family business gives rise to no presumption that the business commenced is an extension of the family business.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Ito, Wd-4,, Thiruvalla vs M/S.Toms Enterprises, Changanacherry on 7 February, 2019

In the case of Satinder Kumar (HUF) vs. CIT (106 ITR 64), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the admission made by an assessee constitute a relevant piece of evidence but if the assessee contends that in 13 I.T.A. No.442/Coch/2018 making the admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on vmisconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Theacit, Cir-1(1),Ekm, Ernakulam vs Sri.E.M.Johny, Kothamangalam on 17 January, 2019

In the case of Satinder Kumar (HUF) vs. CIT (106 ITR 64), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the admission made by an assessee constitute a relevant piece of evidence but if the assessee contends that in making the admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next