Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Gian Chand Vir Bhan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Simla. on 23 December, 1959

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Ranjana Kumari on 28 July, 1986

7. After we have met the catena of judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, we now come to the Punjab High Court decision in Gian Chand Vir Bhangs case {supra) which, according to us, is applicable to the instant case on all fours in favour of the revenue. In this case, Mr. V was member of the HUF and also a partner of the firm. V signed the memo of appeal as a karta of the HUF whereas the appeal was preferred by the firm and he should have signed it as a partner. The Tribunal dismissed the said appeal as incompetent on the ground that he did style himself as a member of the firm. Their Lordships of the High Court held as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indra And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 19 November, 1971

Similarly, the Lahore High Court, in Vir Bhan Bansilal's case held that once the Income Tax Officer starts proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 28 before the assement has been finally made and the tax paid. The pointed controversy whether a mere direction to issue notice is sufficient or whether it should be followed by actual issue of notice to result in the commencement of the proceedings was not directly raised as in both these cases the penalty notice bad already been issued before the assessment orders were made.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.M. Manasvi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Ii on 30 August, 1968

In Vir Bhan Bansi Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the Lahore High Court held that where notice under section 28 of the Act for the imposition of penalty has been issued before the assessment order is made, a penalty under that section may be imposed on a date subsequent to the date of the assessment order and even after the income-tax assessed has been paid by the assessee. At page 623 of the report, the Lahore High Court has pointed out :
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 6 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Vegetable Products Ltd. on 26 June, 1969

In Vir Bhan Bansi Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1938] 6I.T.R. 616 (Lah.) the Lahore High Court has held that, where notice under Section 28 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the imposition of penalty has been issued before the assessment order is made, a penalty under that section may be imposed on a date subsequent to the date of the assessment order and even after the income-tax assessed has been paid by the assessee. The word "payable" in the latter portion of the section means, according to the Lahore High Court, "to which he has been assessed", whether the amount has been paid or not.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 16 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha ... vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. on 16 June, 1978

11. The onus is upon the assessee to prove each one of the ingredients. Assuming for the purpose of this reference, that so far as the first and the third ingredients are concerned, the same are fulfilled having regard to the materials on record, a question arose whether the second ingredient above mentioned has been fulfilled. It is the settled principle of law that if any deduction is claimed, it is for the assessee to prove that the deduction is legally allowable to him. If he fails to do so, the amount so claimed is liable to be assessed. (See Gopinath Vir Bhan v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 243, 251 (Lah)). The onus will, therefore, be upon the assessee to prove that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 paid to the Industrial Aid International was not an expenditure in the nature of capital expenditure.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next