Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Section 17 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Lakshmi Chand Khajuria & Ors vs Smt. Ishroo Devi on 31 March, 1977
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Chand Khajuria v. Smt. Ishroo Devi AIR 1977 SO 1694 at p. 1699 considered whether a mother is entitled to a share of partition of a Mitakshara joint family governed by Southern School of Mitak-shara Law or not. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court, held that in Madras though Mitakshara Law is applicable it has been held that on a partition between sons and the father, the mother is not entitled to any share.
Prem Chand vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... on 30 March, 1983
No doubt Prem Chand's case (supra) was determined by the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck a different note and it dissented from the Orissa decision rendered in K. Satyanarayan Murty's case (supra'). However, the decision itself was rendered on 30-3-1983. Section 148 notice was issued by the department in this case for the four assessment years with which we are concerned on income-tax side on 18-1-1981, whereas Section 17 notices were issued by the department for assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 were all dated 4-3-1983.
Section 18 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Apoorva Shantilal Shah vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Gujarat I, ... on 3 March, 1983
The AAC held disagreeing with this contention that it is not enough if some return is filed in some status. Filing of a return in the correct status is more important than filing of the return itself because the tax liability varies depending upon the status and, therefore, it is imperative that the return should be made in the correct status or else the return becomes non est in law. He went on in dealing with the probable intention of the parties in effecting partition with a six year old son and virtually-held that it is a part of tax planning scheme. However, the AAC made it clear that it is not his point to challenge the validity of the alleged partition between the karta and the six year old minor son since such partitions are held to be legally not impermissible and he cited the Supreme Court's decision in Apoorva Shantilal Shah v. CIT [1983] 141ITR 558. He further held that if the returns were filed admitting the status as HUP consisting of Sri B. Ramaswamy and his wife Smt. B. Saroja Devi, that HUP would have suffered higher rate of tax because Mrs. B. Saroja Devi the member of the HUF is having an individual income/wealth attracting tax liability and that would have been assessed as specified HUF attracting higher rate of tax as per sub-para II of the Schedule to Finance Act, 1974. The AAC further held that adopting a device and by filing the return in the status of an individual the assessee managed to pay lesser tax to a considerable extent, but for the alertness of the officers of the revenue, revenue would have suffered enormously. Ultimately he had confirmed the penalties levied by the ITO/WTO under Section 271(1)(a) and 18(1)(a) as follows :
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs K. Satyanarayan Murty on 17 November, 1982
No doubt Prem Chand's case (supra) was determined by the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck a different note and it dissented from the Orissa decision rendered in K. Satyanarayan Murty's case (supra'). However, the decision itself was rendered on 30-3-1983. Section 148 notice was issued by the department in this case for the four assessment years with which we are concerned on income-tax side on 18-1-1981, whereas Section 17 notices were issued by the department for assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 were all dated 4-3-1983.
1