Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs K. Srinivasan And K. Gopalan on 22 December, 1952

(a)the twelve months ending on the 31st day of March next preceding tile year for which the assessment is to be made, or, if the accounts of the assessee have been made 362 up to a date within the said twelve months in respect of a year ending on any date other than the said 31st day of March, then at the option of the assessee, the year ending on the date to which his accounts have been so made UP The main part of cl. (i)(a) of s. 2(11) gives the primary meaning of the expression "previous year", and this meaning was elucidated by Mahajan, J. in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. K Srinivasan and K. Gopalan(1) thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 155 - Full Document

Messrs. Dhandhania Kedia & Co vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 October, 1958

In Dhandhania Kedia & Co. v. Commissioner 364 of Income-tax( ), this Court pointed out that it is a contradiction in terms to speak of six previous years in relation to any specified assessment year. Mr. Srinivasan is not right in submitting that s. 25(1) contemplates two previous years. Section 25(1) provides that in case of discontinuance of any business, profession or vocation in any assessment year, the Income-tax Officer may in that year make an accelerated assessment in respect of the income of the period between the end of the previous year and the date of such discontinuance, in addition to the usual assessment in respect of the income of the previous year. Section 25(1) contemplates the usual assessment in respect of the income of the previous year and a special and separate assessment in the same assessment year in respect of the income of the broken period between the end of the previous year and the date of the discontinuance; it does not contemplate, as counsel submitted, assessments in the same assessment year in respect of two previous years. Mr. Srinivasan alternatively submitted that the Income-tax Officer could accord sanction to the change on the basis that the income for 21 months should be assessed at the rate applicable to the income of the last period of 12 months. This again is an impossible contention. The Income-tax Officer has no power to vary the rate on which the income of the previous year is to be assessed. The rate of tax is fixed by the Finance Act every year. By s. 3, the tax is levied at that rate for an assessment year in respect of the income of the previous year. Once the length of the previ- ous year is fixed and the income of the previous year is determined, that income must be charged at the rate specified in the Finance Act and at no other rate. The order of the Income-tax Officer, in substance, permitted the change of the previous year on condition that the previous year in relation to the assessment year, 1952-53, would consist of the period of 21 months commencing from July 1, 1950 and ending on March 31, 1952. The Income-tax Officer had power to impose this condition. The further condition that the income of the previous year of 21 months would be assessed at the rate applicable to the income for 21 months is redundant. Once the length of the previous year is found to be a period of 21 months, the income of the entire period of 21 months must be considered to be the income of the previous year relevant for the assessment year, 1952-53, and the entire income must be assessed at the rate specified in the relevant Finance Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 30 - Full Document
1