Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Bhikajee Dadabhai And Company vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 October, 1956

K.P. Chagganlal Oil Mills vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. on 17 January, 1958

10. In construing the words "levy, assessment and collection" quo the action to be taken under section 46(1) of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act where the income has escaped or is under-assessed or is assessed at too low a rate, we held that section 13 of the Indian Finance Act was specifically enacted to save the provisions of Income-tax Acts in Part B States for purposes of completing assessments in the process of being completed as well as assessing incomes escaping assessments, and that, therefore, section 13 of the Indian Finance Act did save section 46(1) of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act notwithstanding its repeal. But in Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, we held that sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Indian Finance Act did not have the effect of saving the provisions of section 40 of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act for purposes of imposing they levy of penalty relating to any particular year or years of assessment.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Rayalaseema Oil Mills, Tadpatri on 9 March, 1959

12. A Bench of the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court had also occasion to consider the scope of the passage in the Judgment of the Privy Council in the cited case, In Messrs. Bhikajee Dadabhai and Co. v. Commr. of Income-tax, ILR (1956) Hyd 899, they expressed the same opinion as in . It was laid down by the Hyderabad High Court that 'assessment' would not include 'penalty'. It is true that they were dealing with the applicability of Section 13(1) of the Indian Finance Act but the principle is the same and that would govern equally the situation arising under Section 44. Therefore, the judgment of the Privy Council cited above is not of much avail to the department.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hyderabad vs Rayalaseema Oil Mills. on 9 March, 1959

In Bhikajee Dadabhai & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jagdish Prasad Ramnath. It was laid down by the Hyderabad High Court that "assessment" would not include "penalty". It is true that they were dealing with the applicability of section 13(1) of the Indian Finance Act but the principle is the samer and that would govern equally the situation arising under section 44. Therefore, the judgment of the Privy Council cited above is not of much avail to the Department.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab vs Tulsi Dass Jashan Lal Kuthiala. on 10 September, 1964

"Leaving aside the merits of the case a preliminary objection was raised that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to impose a penalty after the 1st of April, 1950, under the Patiala Income-tax Act. This view has also been accepted by the Kerala, Hyderabad and Punjab High Court : vide Velayudham v. Additional Income-tax Officer, Trivandrum; Bhikajee Dadabhai & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Nabadwip Chandra Roy v. Commissioner of Income-tax. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no penalty could have been imposed in this case after the 1st èof April, 1950, under the Patiala Income-tax Act. The penalty of Rs........ imposed on.... is therefore wholly remitted."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1