Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 625 (3.77 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras-Ii vs Blue Mountain Engineering ... on 1 March, 1977

The submission of the learned standing counsel for the department was that the new provision has made a change and that the option the existence of which was previously inferred from the following words of section 3 of the Act of 1922, viz., "of every firm and other association of persons or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually" being no longer there in section 4, the same legal position did not apply. As pointed out earlier, the submission was that the income-tax department was entitled to reach the income for taxation in the hands of the proper entity and that the assessment on the basis of any mistaken view of the facts on some other person would not stand in the way of the proper person being assessed. The learned standing counsel stated that any safeguard against any attempt to collect the tax twice over on the same income may be indicated so that it may be given effect to. It was also submitted that the Supreme Court had pointed out in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 at page 230, that appropriate direction could be given to the authority concerned in this behalf.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ramanlal Madanlal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central on 6 February, 1978

Then, his Lordship referred to different provisions and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 and observed that the position was the same and, therefore, the inclusion of the share income of the petitioner in that case from the association of persons, which had already been assessed on the association, was not tenable in law. But, there, the learned judge was really concerned with the maintainability of the Writ petition, because it was not disputed before the learned judge that the tax on the share income of the petitioner from the association of persons which had already been assessed as an association, was not justifiable in law. His Lordship was really concerned whether, in those circumstances, the notice, which was impugned in the application under art. 226 of the Constitution could be corrected in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. This decision went up in appeal and the decision of K. L. Roy J. was confirmed by the Division Bench of this High Court in Appeal No. 302 of 1970, by a judgment delivered on 21st March, 1973.
Calcutta High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 23 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation on 1 July, 1977

19. The submission of the learned standing counsel for the department was that the new provision has made a change and that the option the existence of which was previously inferred from the following words of Section 3 of the Act of 1922, viz., "of every firm and other association of persons or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually" being no longer there in Section 4, the same legal position did not apply. As pointed out earlier, the submission was that the Income-tax department was entitled to reach the income for taxation in the hands of the proper entity and that the assessment on the basis of any mistaken view of the facts on some other person would not stand in the way of the proper person being assessed. The learned standing counsel stated that any safeguard against any attempt to collect the tax twice over on the same income may be indicated so that it may be given effect to. It was also submitted that the Supreme Court had pointed out in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate , that appropriate direction could, be given to the authority concerned in this behalf.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd. on 14 September, 1971

If the observations of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate are read to mean that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can also consider and process for the first time any item of income or claim on the ground that he can do what the Income-tax Officer could have done, the effect would be that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner would also be entitled to consider and process new sources of income which have not been considered by the Income-tax Officer and the limitation placed upon the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry would be set at naught. We do not, therefore, think it would be right to read the observations of the Supreme Court divorced from their context, as if they lay down any broad proposition.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Naveen Glass Products, Firozabad vs Assessee on 27 August, 2012

TC6R.642. The Allahabad Full Bench case has relied on the 36 ITA No.471/Agr/2010 & Others M/s Naveen Glass Products & Others observations of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC) : TC6R.197], that the expression "denial of liability" is comprehensive enough to take in not only the total denial of liability but also the liability to tax under particular circumstances.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 103 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahendra Kumar Agrawalla vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 12 September, 1974

Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate, which I have already referred to. The Supreme Court repelled that contention and it was held that it was not a case of election between two alternative units of assessment but an attempt to bring to tax the income of an assessable entity which had escaped assessment. Subba Rao J. (as he then was) observed as follows:
Patna High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 28 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next