Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (2.33 seconds)Section 23 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bihar & ... vs Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh Of ... on 17 October, 1939
In this connection we might observe that what their Lordships of the Privy council laid down in Commissioner Income-tax v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga was that where the assessee keeps his books on a hybrid system and it is his practice to enter sums as he received them in a deposit register not made available to the revenue authorities, without discriminating between interest and capital payments, and then subsequently to allocate and treat as income certain portions of these sums which he attributed to interest, the Income-tax authorities will not be acting illegally in computing the total income of the assessee for a particular year as consisting in part of actual receipts in that year and in part of sums carried by the assessee to income account in that year out of the receipts of previous years which have been held in suspense and no part of which has previously been returned as income. Thus, according to their Lordships of the Privy council, the previous years returns are material and would furnish good evidence for arriving at a conclusion in the matter of computing profits for the subsequent assessment years.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Gopinath Naik vs Commissioner, Income-Tax on 22 November, 1935
In this connection we might advert to the case of Gopinath Naik v. Commissioner of Income-tax wherein Sulaiman C.J., agreeing with Niamatullah J., held that if the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that the return was incorrect and incomplete and due to that he made private inquiries behind the back of the assessee after starting proceedings under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and he made an assessment on the basis of the result of his inquiries and on an appeal the Assistant Commissioner also made private inquiries and made an assessment on the basis of the result of his inquiries and also relying on the previous orders of assessment, the majority of their Lordships held that the inquiries made by the Income-tax authorities behind the back of the assessee were illegal and were not justified and the result to such private inquires could not have been the basis of assessment. However, their Lordships also laid down that the previous orders of assessment could be a proper basis if there was no better evidence forthcoming.
Homi Jehangir Gheesta vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 22 September, 1960
As laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. Commissioner of Income-tax the mere fact that the income-tax authorities rejected the explanation offered by the assessee will not be enough to draw an inference that any item which is unexplained will constitute income. However, under certain circumstances, the income-tax authorities would be justified in drawing an inference that it amounts to income and the income-tax authorities are not required to prove the fact by direct evidence.