Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.73 seconds)
Documents citing Pentapati Venkataramana And Ors. vs Pentapati Varahalu And Ors. on 22 September, 1938

Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha ... vs Chitluri Venkataramayya on 30 April, 1940

A profit and loss statement filed by the assessee is evidence in the matter and the Income-tax Officer may draw it up himself, if he thinks it expedient to do so. It is common ground, that an order of assessment is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 and the decision in Venkataramana v. Varahalu (1940) 27 A.I.R. Mad. 308, that a statement recorded by an Income-tax Officer falls in the same category, has not been questioned. Now, if a statement recorded by an Income-tax Officer in the course of his examination of the assessee is a public document, it is difficult to sea why a statement handed in by the assessee disclosing the basis of the return called for should not be similarly regarded. Surely the test cannot be whether the profit and loss statement is actually drawn up by the Income-tax Officer.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Rama Rao vs Venkataramayya. on 13 March, 1940

A profit and loss statement filed by the assessee is evidence in the matter and the Income-tax Officer may draw it up himself, if he thinks it expedient to do so. It is common ground, that an order of assessment is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 and the decision in Venkataramana v. Varahalu that a statement recorded by an Income-tax Officer falls in the same category has not been questioned. Now, if a statement recorded by an Income-tax Officer in the course of his examination of the assessee is a public document it is difficult to see why a statement handed in by the assessee disclosing the basis of the return called for should not be similarly regarded. Surely the test cannot be whether the profit and loss statement is actually drawn up by the Income-tax Officer.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha ... vs Chitluri Venkatramayya on 15 April, 1940

A profit and loss statement filed by the assessee is evidence in the matter and the Income-tax Officer may draw it up himself, if he thinks it expedient to do so. It is common ground, that an order of assessment is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 and the decision in Venkataramana v. Varahalu (1938) 50 L.W. 681, that a statement recorded by an Income-tax Officer falls in the same category has not been questioned. Now, if a statement recorded by an Income-tax Officer in the course of his examination of the assessee is a public document it is difficult to see why a statement handed in by the assessee disclosing the basis of the return called for should not be similarly regarded. Surely, the test cannot be whether the profit and loss statement is actually drawn up by the Income-tax Officer.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

H.M.Kari Gowder(Died) vs H.M.Halan on 15 July, 2003

In Pentapati Venkataramana and others v. Pentapathi Varahalu (Dead) and others, referred to supra, a Division Bench of this Court had held that the statements made by a person before an Income Tax Officer, would be admissible in evidence and it would amount to an admission in terms of Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no doubt about the proposition of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in those decisions. In the case on hand, we are faced with a situation, where the plaintiff has come to Court with a plea that the suit A Schedule properties are ancestral properties and the suit B and C Schedules were purchased in the name of Mooka Gowder, and the 1st defendant from and out of the income from the ancestral nucleus. The 1st defendant is the eldest son of Mooka Gowder and the 3rd defendant is the lawyer by profession and he has been representing the cause of the 1st defendant till about 1979. Insofar as Ex.A63 is concerned, it is the reply given by Mooka Gowder to the penalty notice under Section 271 (1)(A) of the Income Tax Act, wherein it is stated that regarding the property income the property belongs to myself and my three brothers, the annual rental collection comes to Rs.7,000/- It does not refer to any specific property.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

H.M.Kari Gowder(Died) vs H.M.Halan on 15 July, 2003

In Pentapati Venkataramana and others v. Pentapathi Varahalu (Dead) and others, referred to supra, a Division Bench of this Court had held that the statements made by a person before an Income Tax Officer, would be admissible in evidence and it would amount to an admission in terms of Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no doubt about the proposition of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in those decisions. In the case on hand, we are faced with a situation, where the plaintiff has come to Court with a plea that the suit A Schedule properties are ancestral properties and the suit B and C Schedules were purchased in the name of Mooka Gowder, and the 1st defendant from and out of the income from the ancestral nucleus. The 1st defendant is the eldest son of Mooka Gowder and the 3rd defendant is the lawyer by profession and he has been representing the cause of the 1st defendant till about 1979. Insofar as Ex.A63 is concerned, it is the reply given by Mooka Gowder to the penalty notice under Section 271 (1)(A) of the Income Tax Act, wherein it is stated that regarding the property income the property belongs to myself and my three brothers, the annual rental collection comes to Rs.7,000/- It does not refer to any specific property.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

A.S. Murugan vs Neelavathi, Rajaram And Suresh on 1 January, 2007

8. While absolutely there is no quarrel about the proposition as laid by this Court in the said Judgment, I do not think that fact of the present case can be taken as an instance for the purpose of granting relief to the plaintiff. The reliance placed on by the learned Counsel for the applicant on the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Pentapati Venkataramana and Ors. v. Pentapati Varahalu and Ors. A.I.R.1940 Madras 308 is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. That was again a case where in respect of dissolution of partnership when the plaintiff has claimed a wider relief which cannot be granted, but at the same time, it was held that it will not deprive him to restrict his right to a limited relief.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

A.K. Kaderkutty vs Agricultural Income-Tax Officer, ... on 16 August, 1960

AIR 1946 Nag 377 Suraj Narain v. Jhabbu Lal, AIR 1944, All 114 and Venkataramana v. Varahalu, 1939-7 ITR 560:, (AIR 1940 Mad 308). On a Plain reading of Section 54 (1) there is no room for thinking, that two privileges, one a privilege of the assessee, and the other a privilege of the Income Tax Officer, are envisaged by it; it refers only to one privilege in respect of all documents, including "any record of an assessment proceeding".
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

A.S.Murugan vs Neelavathi

8. While absolutely there is no quarrel about the proposition as laid by this Court in the said Judgment, I do not think that fact of the present case can be taken as an instance for the purpose of granting relief to the plaintiff. The reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the applicant on the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Pentapati Venkataramana and Others V. Pentapati Varahalu and Others (A.I.R.1940 Madras 308) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. That was again a case where in respect of dissolution of partnership when the plaintiff has claimed a wider relief which cannot be granted, but at the same time, it was held that it will not deprive him to restrict his right to a limited relief.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document
1   2 Next