Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.93 seconds)Section 84 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry on 14 February, 1962
If the observations of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate are read to mean that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can also consider and process for the first time any item of income or claim on the ground that he can do what the Income-tax Officer could have done, the effect would be that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner would also be entitled to consider and process new sources of income which have not been considered by the Income-tax Officer and the limitation placed upon the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry would be set at naught. We do not, therefore, think it would be right to read the observations of the Supreme Court divorced from their context, as if they lay down any broad proposition.
Narrondas Manordass vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central ... on 13 February, 1957
It is true that no claim for exemption having been made by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer, there was no decision of the Income-tax Officer, express or implied, holding that a certain portion of profit of the assessee was not exempt from tax under section 84. But, in order that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be entitled to interfere in appeal on a particular point, it is not necessary that there should be a decision on the point given by the Income-tax Officer. It is enough if the particular item of income in relation to which the point is sought to be raised has come in for consideration by the Income-tax Officer and has been subjected by him to the process of assessment. If we may refer once again to the observations from the judgment of Chagla C.J. in Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which observations were quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. McMillan and Co., it is clear that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can revise not only "the various decisions given by the Income-tax Officer in the course of assessment" but also "the various incomes or deductions which came in for consideration of the Income-tax Officer". The portion of profit exempt from tax under section 84 was clearly subjected to the process of assessment by the Income-tax Officer and it was, therefore, open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the appeal preferred by the assessee, to examine whether the assessment of this portion of the profit to tax was right or wrong, whether it was rightly brought to tax, and that would bring in consideration of the question whether it was exempt from tax under section 84. It is, therefore, not possible to say that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no power to consider whether a portion of the profit of the assessee was exempt from tax under section 84 on the ground that no such claim had been put forward by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer at the time of the assessment.
Section 31 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate on 30 April, 1964
If the observations of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate are read to mean that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can also consider and process for the first time any item of income or claim on the ground that he can do what the Income-tax Officer could have done, the effect would be that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner would also be entitled to consider and process new sources of income which have not been considered by the Income-tax Officer and the limitation placed upon the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry would be set at naught. We do not, therefore, think it would be right to read the observations of the Supreme Court divorced from their context, as if they lay down any broad proposition.
Jagarnath Therani vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 January, 1925
7. Now the earliest decision on this point is that of the Patna High Court in Jagarnath Therani v. Commissioner of Income-tax. That was a case where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner sought to enhance the assessment by including the income from two businesses which had not been assessed to tax by the Income-tax Officer. The Patna High Court took the view that this was not permissible to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner since the sources of income which he sought to assess had not been subjected to the process of assessment by the Income-tax Officer. It was observed by the Patna High Court :
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Mcmillan & Co on 16 October, 1957
It is true that no claim for exemption having been made by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer, there was no decision of the Income-tax Officer, express or implied, holding that a certain portion of profit of the assessee was not exempt from tax under section 84. But, in order that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be entitled to interfere in appeal on a particular point, it is not necessary that there should be a decision on the point given by the Income-tax Officer. It is enough if the particular item of income in relation to which the point is sought to be raised has come in for consideration by the Income-tax Officer and has been subjected by him to the process of assessment. If we may refer once again to the observations from the judgment of Chagla C.J. in Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which observations were quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. McMillan and Co., it is clear that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can revise not only "the various decisions given by the Income-tax Officer in the course of assessment" but also "the various incomes or deductions which came in for consideration of the Income-tax Officer". The portion of profit exempt from tax under section 84 was clearly subjected to the process of assessment by the Income-tax Officer and it was, therefore, open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the appeal preferred by the assessee, to examine whether the assessment of this portion of the profit to tax was right or wrong, whether it was rightly brought to tax, and that would bring in consideration of the question whether it was exempt from tax under section 84. It is, therefore, not possible to say that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no power to consider whether a portion of the profit of the assessee was exempt from tax under section 84 on the ground that no such claim had been put forward by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer at the time of the assessment.
Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd., ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 15 April, 1952
9. The Bombay High Court also expressed the same view in Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax and quoted with approval the decision of the Patna High Court in Jagarnath Therani v. Commissioner of Income-tax as also the above observations from the judgment of the Madras High Court in Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Chagla C.J., speaking on behalf of the Division Bench, pointed out that there was a distinction between the subject-matter of the appeal and the subject-matter of the assessment and the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not confined to the subject-matter of the appeal but extended to the subject-matter of the assessment.