Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Kamal Singh Rampuria on 12 February, 1969
Such a finding, therefore, cannot he gone into in this reference : See CIT v. Kamal Singh Rampuria .
Govinddas & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Income Tax Officer & Another on 18 December, 1975
In the case of Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 the Supreme Court observed that the words "all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly" in Clause (d) of Section 297(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, merely referred to the machinery provided in the new Act for the assessment of escaped income. They did not import any substantive provisions of the new Act which created rights or liabilities. The word "accordingly" in the context meant nothing more than "for the purpose of assessment" and it clearly suggested that the provisions of the new Act which were made applicable were thus relating to the machinery of assessment. The substantive law to be applied for determining the liability to tax must necessarily be the law under the old Act, for, that is the law which applied during the relevant assessment years and it is that law which must govern the liability of the parties. Section 4 of the I.T. Act, 1961, created the liability to pay tax for the previous year. What will be the previous year in a particular situation in respect of a particular income has been sought to be controlled by Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, In view of the ratio of the Supreme Court decision referred to hereinbefore, it is not necessary for us to decide for the purpose of this case whether Section 68 is a substantial provision pr merely procedural. We are, however, inclined to think that it affects in certain cases substantial rights but we need not rest our decision on this aspect of the matter. We agree with the Tribunal that Clause (h) and (k) have no application to the controversy. As we have indicated above, there is no challenge to the finding of the Tribunal that this was income from undisclosed sources. This is a finding which is unchallenged.