Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.23 seconds)Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 41C in The Gift-Tax Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Gift-Tax Act, 1958
Smt. Gouri Kumari Devi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 May, 1959
The Patna High Court in the case of Gouri Kumari Devi v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 220 held on the facts of the case where a memorandum of appeal signed by the power of attorney agent was originally presented in time but when after the period of limitation had expired and it was subsequently amended by filing a fresh memorandum of appeal signed by proper appellant, it was held that there was a proper appeal presented before the Tribunal and the appeal could not be dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time. In the light of this judgment, we have granted a period of 15 days to the revenue to file the fresh application in correct form and correct heading while disposing of preliminary objection against the assessee and keeping our order on reference application pending. The Orissa High Court again held in the case of Addl.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs K. Padmalochan Sahu on 4 September, 1973
CIT v. K. Padmalochan Sahu [1974] 95 ITR 113, where memo of appeal by the assessee-HUF not signed by karta could be allowed to be rectified, their Lordships held that :
Sant Baba Mohan Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 January, 1972
Next case is that of the Allahabad High Court in Sant Baba Mohan Singh's case (supra), on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the assessee. In this case, it was held that assessment proceedings were a nullity as the ITO had no jurisdiction ab initio to take the proceeding. Their Lordships held as under :
Gian Chand Vir Bhan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Simla. on 23 December, 1959
7. After we have met the catena of judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, we now come to the Punjab High Court decision in Gian Chand Vir Bhangs case {supra) which, according to us, is applicable to the instant case on all fours in favour of the revenue. In this case, Mr. V was member of the HUF and also a partner of the firm. V signed the memo of appeal as a karta of the HUF whereas the appeal was preferred by the firm and he should have signed it as a partner. The Tribunal dismissed the said appeal as incompetent on the ground that he did style himself as a member of the firm. Their Lordships of the High Court held as under :