Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.85 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. on 6 April, 1961
In this connection I rely upon the principles decided in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. :
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd., ... vs The Commissioner Of ... on 2 November, 1962
The learned counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax has submitted in reply that the High Court in exercise of its limited advisory jurisdiction under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act can only answer the question of law under reference by basing their answer on the facts admitted or found by the Tribunal. He has urged that in the instant case, the Tribunal has accepted the position that section 9(1)(ii) applies to the facts of this case. Secondly, the Tribunal has set out relevant facts in the statement of case consistently with that position. Thirdly, in the application for reference, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has set out the facts in such a way that section 9(1)(ii) alone would apply. Further, he has submitted that, although the assessment by the Tribunal has been made in favour of the assessee, the latter could have raised new points of law on the basis of facts on record. He has added that, in fact, the assessee, Parbutty Churn Law, has raised a second question of law regarding the applicability of section 34 and for that purpose he has referred to certain facts as set out at page 41 of the paper-book. It is true that while drawing up a statement of case the Tribunal keeps before it the facts which are found or admitted by the parties and that the Tribunal has drawn up an agreed statement of case. It is also true that the question referred to this court must be taken to have been raised on the facts in the statement of case and, therefore, has to be answered also on those facts. Relying upon Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., Commissioner of Income-tax v. Calcutta Agency Ltd., Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amarchand N. Shroff and Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, he has submitted that we have no jurisdiction to answer the question of law under reference by stating that section 9(1)(i) would apply on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, he has also argued on the basis of the same decisions that we have no jurisdiction to state that the determination of the annual value by addition of a particular sum is not applicable to the facts of this case. In our opinion, the contention of Mr. Pal cannot be accepted. It seems, the question of law under reference is wide enough for us to hold that section 9(1)(i) would apply to the facts of this case.
Section 108 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... vs Calcutta Agency Ltd on 21 December, 1950
The learned counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax has submitted in reply that the High Court in exercise of its limited advisory jurisdiction under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act can only answer the question of law under reference by basing their answer on the facts admitted or found by the Tribunal. He has urged that in the instant case, the Tribunal has accepted the position that section 9(1)(ii) applies to the facts of this case. Secondly, the Tribunal has set out relevant facts in the statement of case consistently with that position. Thirdly, in the application for reference, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has set out the facts in such a way that section 9(1)(ii) alone would apply. Further, he has submitted that, although the assessment by the Tribunal has been made in favour of the assessee, the latter could have raised new points of law on the basis of facts on record. He has added that, in fact, the assessee, Parbutty Churn Law, has raised a second question of law regarding the applicability of section 34 and for that purpose he has referred to certain facts as set out at page 41 of the paper-book. It is true that while drawing up a statement of case the Tribunal keeps before it the facts which are found or admitted by the parties and that the Tribunal has drawn up an agreed statement of case. It is also true that the question referred to this court must be taken to have been raised on the facts in the statement of case and, therefore, has to be answered also on those facts. Relying upon Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., Commissioner of Income-tax v. Calcutta Agency Ltd., Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amarchand N. Shroff and Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, he has submitted that we have no jurisdiction to answer the question of law under reference by stating that section 9(1)(i) would apply on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, he has also argued on the basis of the same decisions that we have no jurisdiction to state that the determination of the annual value by addition of a particular sum is not applicable to the facts of this case. In our opinion, the contention of Mr. Pal cannot be accepted. It seems, the question of law under reference is wide enough for us to hold that section 9(1)(i) would apply to the facts of this case.
Section 108 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... vs Amarchand N. Shroff, By His Heirsand ... on 10 October, 1962
The learned counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax has submitted in reply that the High Court in exercise of its limited advisory jurisdiction under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act can only answer the question of law under reference by basing their answer on the facts admitted or found by the Tribunal. He has urged that in the instant case, the Tribunal has accepted the position that section 9(1)(ii) applies to the facts of this case. Secondly, the Tribunal has set out relevant facts in the statement of case consistently with that position. Thirdly, in the application for reference, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has set out the facts in such a way that section 9(1)(ii) alone would apply. Further, he has submitted that, although the assessment by the Tribunal has been made in favour of the assessee, the latter could have raised new points of law on the basis of facts on record. He has added that, in fact, the assessee, Parbutty Churn Law, has raised a second question of law regarding the applicability of section 34 and for that purpose he has referred to certain facts as set out at page 41 of the paper-book. It is true that while drawing up a statement of case the Tribunal keeps before it the facts which are found or admitted by the parties and that the Tribunal has drawn up an agreed statement of case. It is also true that the question referred to this court must be taken to have been raised on the facts in the statement of case and, therefore, has to be answered also on those facts. Relying upon Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., Commissioner of Income-tax v. Calcutta Agency Ltd., Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amarchand N. Shroff and Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, he has submitted that we have no jurisdiction to answer the question of law under reference by stating that section 9(1)(i) would apply on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, he has also argued on the basis of the same decisions that we have no jurisdiction to state that the determination of the annual value by addition of a particular sum is not applicable to the facts of this case. In our opinion, the contention of Mr. Pal cannot be accepted. It seems, the question of law under reference is wide enough for us to hold that section 9(1)(i) would apply to the facts of this case.
1