Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.37 seconds)
Priyanand Prasad Singh vs Income Tax Officer on 25 March, 1957 cites

Haji Ahmad Haji Esak & Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 10 October, 1950

Under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer to initiate proceedings depended on his receipt of definite information, the consequence of which was that he discovered that some income had escaped assessment. The Income Tax Officer could, therefore, proceed under that provision of law only on the clear finding that the Income Tax Officer did not have that definite information at the earlier stage of the original assessment. If that information was already available to the Income Tax Officer when he first made the original assessment, it is not possible to say that the subsequent discorery of escape of income from assessment is the result of receipt of the same information at the later stage. A mere possibility that that information had escaped his notice when he was making the original assessment is not sufficient to justify proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian income Tax Act. The principle that an Income Tax Officer cannot proceed under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act on the basis of information which was already in his possession was laid down by the Bombay High Court in Haji Ahmad Haji Esak and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, 1951-19 ITR 331: (AIR 1931 Bom 299) (A), where it was held:
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 22 - V Bose - Full Document

Pratap Singh vs Commr. Of Income-Tax on 2 May, 1952

6. The second question has been divided into two parts: In the first part of the question, the point, raised is whether the income received by the assessee from forests was agricultural income under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. On this point, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on scrutiny of the evidence was that the evidence for short of proving that the forests were grown by the process of agriculture in the manner stated by the assessee's witnesses. The result of their examination of the evidence was that the assessee had failed to prove it as a fact that the forests in question were planted by him by means of any agricultural operations, The forests consisted of timber trees which were natural products of many parts of this province and they were, therefore, of spontaneous growth like other natural products. On these findings, it is quite clear that the income of the assessee from forests in this case cannot be held to be agricultural income. Reference may be made to a decision of this Court in Pratap Singh Balbeer Singh v. Commissioner of income-tax, U.P. and C. P., 1952-22 ITR 1 : (AIR 1952 All 845) (B), where it was held that the words "agriculture" and "agricultural purposes" with reference to land clearly imply that some operations must be carried on, the soil of the lands itself and human skill and labour should be used for the purpose of ploughing the soil, manuring it, planting the trees or some similar process.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Jyotikana Chowdhurani And Others vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Assam. on 10 August, 1953

On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on a decision of the Assam High Court in Jyotikana Chowdhurani v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Assam, 1954-26 ITR 424: (AIR 1954 Assam 113) (SB) (C). In that case, the learned Judges of the Assam High Court considered the decision of this Court in 1952-22 ITR 1: (AIR 1952 All 845) (B) cited above and differed from the view taken in that case. The learned Chief Justice, delivering his judgment, divided the various cases on this point into three groups and was of the view that the case decided by this Court, cited above, fell in the second group in which it had been held that ploughing or tilling were not the only decisive factors in agricultural operations but that human labour and skill must be spent in operations upon the land itself, e.g., in the shape of sowing, planting, hosing, watering, manuring etc. The third group of cases, the learned Chief Justice held, laid down the correct view that if human skill and labour is employed, to aid the growth of the trees, even if the trees are of spontaneous germination, the operations are agricultural operations. In this class the learned Chief Justice included cases where human labour and skill may have been so employed as to exploit the land to its best advantage and make it yield to its products or things growing on the land, its maximum nutriment--be it crop or fruit or vegetable or trees and the process in each case should and must be regarded as 'agricultural process".
Gauhati High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1