Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.38 seconds)Section 3 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pure Nichitpur Colliery Company on 9 September, 1974
In view of the conflict of the decisions of the Patna High Court, we gave our anxious consideration to the matter. The problem cannot be said to be free from difficulty. We have already indicated the aspects which were placed before us and which would in a way justify the view that the provisions of the Act of 1961 have to be considered on their own. However, taking into account the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pure Nichitpur Colliery Company [1975] 101 ITR 79 (Pat), which has gone into the provisions in detail, we think it proper to adopt the same view which commended itself to the learned judges, who decided that case, though not without some hesitation.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate on 30 April, 1964
The submission of the learned standing counsel for the department was that the new provision has made a change and that the option the existence of which was previously inferred from the following words of section 3 of the Act of 1922, viz., "of every firm and other association of persons or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually" being no longer there in section 4, the same legal position did not apply. As pointed out earlier, the submission was that the income-tax department was entitled to reach the income for taxation in the hands of the proper entity and that the assessment on the basis of any mistaken view of the facts on some other person would not stand in the way of the proper person being assessed. The learned standing counsel stated that any safeguard against any attempt to collect the tax twice over on the same income may be indicated so that it may be given effect to. It was also submitted that the Supreme Court had pointed out in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 at page 230, that appropriate direction could be given to the authority concerned in this behalf.
Section 2 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Murlidhar Jhawar And Purna Ginning & ... on 4 March, 1962
We do not find anything in the said decision which runs counter to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95, which, as already pointed out, still covers the cases arising under the Act of 1961.
M. M. Ipoh & Ors vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 26 July, 1967
The learned standing counsel drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in M.M.Ipoh v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1968] 67 ITR 106. We consider that the reliance placed on the said case is not apposite. In the said case after the partition in a joint family there was an association of persons consisting of one Meyyappa (1) and M.S.M.M. firm and Chettiappa. The Income-tax Officer sought to assess this association of persons. The contention raised by Meyyappa (1) was that there was no association of persons which could be brought to tax. This contention failed before the income-tax authorities and also before the Tribunal. The matter thereafter came before this court on reference. There were also petitions filed before this court under article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of prohibition restraining the Income-tax Officer from enforcing the demand made by him in respect of the tax assessed against the association of persons. In the writ proceedings the contention taken was that the provisions of section 3 of the Act of 1922 in so far as it authorised the Income-tax Officer to proceed against the association or the individual member thereof offended article 14 of the Constitution and they were, therefore, invalid. This contention was negatived by this court. It was also held that there was an association consisting of Meyyappa (1) and M.S.M.M. firm and Chettiappa which was liable to tax. The decisions of this court in writ petition and in the reference were confirmed by the Supreme Court. It is only in the course of finding out whether the discretion vested in the Income-tax Officer to tax the income either in the hands of the association or in the hands of the members individually was arbitrary or not, so as to be hit by article 14, certain observations came to be made.