Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 79 (2.63 seconds)
Documents citing Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 15 May, 1959

Smt. Lucy Kochuvareed vs Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 7 August, 1970

On the facts and circumstances of this case, whether there has been escape of income to attract section 35 depends on the interpretation to be placed on section 35 (and as we have seen it has seen it has to be held that the section is attracted (Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar) and this is only an aspect of the question referred to us. As has been ruled by the Supreme Court "it will be an over-refinement of the position to hold that each aspect a question is itself a distinct question" (See the ruling in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.) Whether there is any escape of income and whether section 35 of the Act is attracted are questions arising from the order of the Commissioner and are covered by the question referred. We, therefore, negative this contention as well.
Kerala High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

F.K. Hasheeb And Co. vs The State Of Madras on 19 August, 1964

29. These two decisions therefore cannot be regarded as authorities warranting the conclusion that if as a result of the wide meaning given to the words turnover escaping assessment there should be any overlaping of jurisdiction of the assessing authority under Section 16 and the revising authority under Section 32, the latter would have no jurisdiction to correct the error committed by the assessing authority. With respect we agree with the view taken by Jagadisan and Venkatadri, JJ., in the. unreported case, Tax Cases Nos. 56 and 58 of 1963 (though the view expressed by them regarding the relevancy of the decisions under the Income-tax Act may not be correct in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above), that the provisions of Sections 16 and 32 are not so mutually exclusive as to preclude a case falling under Section 16 of the Act being dealt with under Section 32. There may be overlapping if a wide meaning is given to the words turnover escaping assessment. But that certainly cannot deprive the revising authority of its revisional jurisdiction conferred under the plain terms of the section.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Agricultural ... vs Panampunna Estates (No. 1) on 23 June, 1997

12. As mentioned earlier, the provision in the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act, which was the subject-matter of the decision by the Supreme Court in Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar [1959] 37 ITR 388 was pari materia with the provisions contained under Section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. Therefore, we would be fully justified in applying the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case to the facts of the present case.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - G Sivarajan - Full Document

Black Stone Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 19 February, 2001

(39). We would refrain from expressing any opinion on merit of this issue at this stage as it would not only require collection of necessary material as an assessing officer but also to go into different aspects of the terms of contract and the process used in execution of works contract, when it can be said that the goods are Involved in the execution of works. This enquiry cannot be equated with the case 'on mere change of opinion' so as to deprive the assessing officer from going into such questions by having recourse to Sec. 12 of the Act, if in the original assessment proceedings there has been omission to address to such question as was the case in Kameshwar Singh's case (supra).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 39 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay ... vs M/S. Narsee Nagsee And Co., Bombay on 6 May, 1960

In Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar (4), the income returned was not brought to tax and later under s. 26 of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1938, it was sought to be assessed. Section 26 of that Act was held to cover such a case, and the language of that section was extremely wide. These cases are hardly in point. (1) L R. (1933) 61 I.A. 10. (2) [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 10. (3) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 114. (4) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 332.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 37 - J L Kapur - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Ratna Sree Box Makers on 21 February, 1989

15. In that case, the High Court had not accepted the contention that restricted meaning had to be given to the word "escaped", i.e., only in cases where an item of income was not charged to tax due to a mistake or oversight on the part of the taxing authorities, that item could well come within the term "escaped" was not accepted. Therein it was held that in view of the words "any reason" and in view of the latter part of section "where income ............ has been assessed at too low a rate" the phrase "escaped assessment" includes a case where there was a deliberate action. The said view of the High Court was approved by the Supreme Court in the above decision.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 13 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Centuary Ecka vs The State Of Rajasthan on 6 April, 1987

The Division Bench of this Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1959 SC 1303 and of this Court in Bhanwarlal Binjaram v. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Jodhpur 1976 WLN (UC) 459 held that the view of the learned single Judge was based on just and proper reason and called for no interference in special appeal as there was no patent lack of jurisdiction of the assessing authority in issuing notice under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 64 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

A. Arpudaswami Chettiar vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 27 July, 1967

In an unreported decision of a Bench of this court in The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore v. D. Srinivasa Iyer, T.C. No. 85 of 1962 Venkatadri, J., who delivered the judgment of the Bench relied upon Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar [1959] 37 I.T.R. 388 and held that the Joint Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction under the Madras General Sales Tax Act to revise his own original order and by a subsequent order refix the turnover at an enhanced amount and assess the tax on the revised turnover, relying for that purpose on Section 16(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which, as observed earlier, is in part materia, with Rule 5(7) of the Central Sales Tax Rules. In view of these authoritative statements on the interpretation to be given to the terms of Rule 5(7) of the Central Sales Tax Rules as well as Section 16(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, it will not be proper to hold that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in this case had. no jurisdiction to reassess the earlier assessment which had been made under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, on the ground that the earlier assessment did not properly interpret the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act regarding the inter-State sales, and that, on the correct view of the relevant provisions, the turnover should have been assessed only under the Central Sales Tax Act and not under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. I may incidentally observe that there was no attack at the time of the hearing about the correctness of the legal position about the assessability of the turnover in question under the Central Sales Tax Act.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next