Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (4.47 seconds)
Documents citing Wallace Brothers And Co. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 February, 1948

A. S. Sivan Pillai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 12 March, 1960

"Section 31 speaks in general way as to how appeals should be heard before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and is not confined to appeals in respect of matters mentioned in section 30 only. Consequently, an appeal under rule 6, which has been framed in exercise of power under section 49A of the Act, would be governed by section 31, and such appeals must be heard in the manner laid down in section 31.... If that be so, section 33 applies to such appeals and there would lie an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal."
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Devi Dayal Marwah vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... on 29 November, 1962

Though no doubt the Supreme Court in the case of Seth Teomal v. Commissioner of Income-tax observed that there is nothing in the Bidi Supply case which in any way detracts from the efficacy of the decision of the Federal Court in Wallace Brothers case, the emphasis in both the cases was the maintainability of an objection as to the place of assessment in an appeal against the assessment after the assessment has been made.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Smt. Sohani Devi Jain vs Income-Tax Officer, "A" Ward And Ors. on 3 January, 1977

The decision in Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd, v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1945] 13 ITR 39 (FC) was followed. The statement by the assessee to the effect that the income which accrued to him in Madhya Bharat for the year 1949-50 could not be taxed under the Income-tax Act and that, therefore, he was not liable to pay tax, was held to be not an objection as to the place of assessment. Since the petitioner in the present case did not specifically object to the place of assessment but merely contended before the Income-tax Officer, Jorhat, that he had no authority to reassess the petitioner, it is urged that such a contention would not amount to an objection to the jurisdiction of the officer as contemplated under Section 64 and that, therefore, an objection as to jurisdiction of the officer cannot be raised after the assessment.
Gauhati High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 23 - B Islam - Full Document

The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954

On the first question, it is argued by the learned Attorney- General that the decision in Croft v. Dunphy(1) had reference to a law enacted by the Legislature of Dominion of Canada and not any of the Provinces, and that the decisions in Governor-General in Council v. Raleigh Investment Co. (1), Wallace Brothers & Co. v. The Commissioner of Income- tax, Bombay(1) and A. H. Wadia v. Income-tax Commissioner., Bombay(1) related to the Indian Income-tax Act which was enacted by the Central Legislature, and that to apply the doctrine laid down in those cases to laws passed by the States would be to extend its operation beyond recognised limits, and that there was no warrant for it in the Constitution. On principle, it is difficult to see why a law enacted by the State in respect of the matters assigned exclusively to its jurisdiction should stand on a different footing from a law passed by Parliament on a matter within its jurisdiction. Both the Legislatures derive their authority from the same source, whether it be the Government of India Act, 1935, or the Constitution of India. Under these Statutes, the State is not subordinate to the Centre, its authority being supreme in respect of the matters entrusted to it. Under the Government of India Act, 1935, when the British Government decided to change what was a unitary into a Federal Government, the process adopted for (1) [1933] A.C. 156.
Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1107 - Full Document

Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 September, 1955

On the first question, it is argued by the learned Attorney- General that the decision in Croft v. Dunphy, [1933] A.C. 156 had reference to a law enacted by the Legislature of Dominion of Canada and not any of the Provinces, and that the decisions in Governor-General in Council v. Raleigh Investment Co., [1944] F.C.R. 229 , Wallace Brothers & Co. v. The Commissioner of Income- tax, Bombay, [1948] F.C.R. 1 and A. H. Wadia v. Income-tax Commissioner., Bombay, [1949] F.C.R. 18 related to the Indian Income-tax Act which was enacted by the Central Legislature, and that to apply the doctrine laid down in those cases to laws passed by the States would be to extend its operation beyond recognised limits, and that there was no warrant for it in the Constitution. On principle, it is difficult to see why a law enacted by the State in respect of the matters assigned exclusively to its jurisdiction should stand on a different footing from a law passed by Parliament on a matter within its jurisdiction. Both the Legislatures derive their authority from the same source, whether it be the Government of India Act, 1935, or the Constitution of India. Under these Statutes, the State is not subordinate to the Centre, its authority being supreme in respect of the matters entrusted to it. Under the Government of India Act, 1935, when the British Government decided to change what was a unitary into a Federal Government, the process adopted for that purpose was that the Parliament resumed all the powers that had been granted under the previous Constitution Act and redistributed them between the Centre and the Province. The terms on which the redistribution was made were identical both for the Centre and the Province, their authority under sections 99(1) and 100 being to enact laws in respect, of the matters mentioned in the appropriate lists an for their respective territory. The extent of this authority must, therefore, be the same both in the case of the Centre and the State, each being sovereign within its own sphere.
Supreme Court of India Cites 125 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd vs Comnmissioner Of Wealth Tax, (Central) ... on 24 November, 1965

Counsel for the Company however sought to contend, not- withstanding the view expressed in the cases cited, that under the Income-tax Act, 1922, liability to pay income-tax arises at the latest on the last day of the previous year, and that being the valuation date under the Wealth Tax Act, in computing wealthtax, income-tax payable for the year ending March 31, 1957, could be regarded as a debt owed by the Company on the valuation date. Counsel relied upon the following observations made by the Judicial Committee in Wallace Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of, Income- tax, Bombay City(2) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 205 - Full Document

Novrtis India Ltd, Mumbai vs Addl Cit Cir 7(1), Mumbai on 20 March, 2024

In this view of the matter, it is difficult to hold, as has been strenuously argued before us by the learned Departmental Representative, that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of Godavari Devi Saraf's cases stands overruled by Their Lordship's judgment in the case of Thana Electricity Co. Ltd.'s case. The only way in which we can harmoniously interpret these judgments is that these decisions deal with two different issues and ratio decidendi of these decisions must be construed accordingly".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 163 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next