Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.02 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 185 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 187 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Ganga Motor Service vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 16 September, 1974
In this case, a Division Bench of this Court, following its earlier decisions in Ganga Motor Service v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 132 (Patna) and Alankar Jewellers v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 89 (Patna), as also of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Brij Rattan Lal Bhoop Kishore v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 722 (All), held that under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer could not refuse registration on the ground that the application for registration was not signed by one partner and that the Income-tax Officer had to give an opportunity to the assessee to correct the defect in the application.
Alankar Jewellers vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 12 September, 1978
In this case, a Division Bench of this Court, following its earlier decisions in Ganga Motor Service v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 132 (Patna) and Alankar Jewellers v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 89 (Patna), as also of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Brij Rattan Lal Bhoop Kishore v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 722 (All), held that under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer could not refuse registration on the ground that the application for registration was not signed by one partner and that the Income-tax Officer had to give an opportunity to the assessee to correct the defect in the application.
Brij Ratan Lal Bhoop Kishore And Anr. vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 August, 1979
In this case, a Division Bench of this Court, following its earlier decisions in Ganga Motor Service v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 132 (Patna) and Alankar Jewellers v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 89 (Patna), as also of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Brij Rattan Lal Bhoop Kishore v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 722 (All), held that under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer could not refuse registration on the ground that the application for registration was not signed by one partner and that the Income-tax Officer had to give an opportunity to the assessee to correct the defect in the application.
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Ram Narain Laxman Prasad vs Income-Tax Officer, "D" Ward And Ors. on 20 May, 1971
35. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances as on record and the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, it appears to me that the authorities below erred in following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Narain Laxman Prasad's case [1972] 84 ITR 233, which cannot be held to be good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Full Bench of the same High Court in Badri Narain Kashi Prasad's case [1978] 115 ITR 858. The said Full Bench decision has been followed in the subsequent decisions of the Allahabad High Court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has also expressed the same view as will appear from the decisions noted hereinabove.