Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)
The Anglo French Textile Co. Ltd. By ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 January, 1950
cites
Section 24 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 84 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs D.R. Naik on 20 March, 1939
The decision in Income-tax Commissioner v, D. R. Naik, A. I. R. (26) 1939 Bom. 362; (I. L.R. (1939) Bom, 445) is authority only for the position that if immovable property is charged for maintenance allowance payable to female members of a joint family by a decree of Court, the amounts paid in discharge of that obligation would not be part of the income of the assesses and does not support the contention urged on behalf of the assessee in the present case. The argument addressed on behalf of the assessee that the Income-tax Officer is bound to proceed to determine the question raised by the assessee under Section 24 (3) and record the loss, notwithatanding the withdrawal of the notice under Section 34 and notwithstanding the fact that the Income. tax Officer had any authority. Nor are we prepared to agree with the contention that under Section 34 the Income tax Officer is bound to proceed to assess the total income afresh and is not confined or restricted to assess only the escaped income. The language of Sections 34 and 24 (3) of the Act is clear and admits of no doubt; and incur opinion, the view of the Appellate Tribunal is correct.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mahaliram Ramjidas on 25 April, 1940
The decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal v. Mahaliram Ramjeedas, 67 I. A. 239: (A. I. R. (27) 1940 P. C. 124) only lays down that the Income-tax Officer, before he initiates proceedings under Section 34, is not bound to hold quasijudicial enquiry to determine whether profits had escaped assessment or not. He is not even bound to give notice to the assessee or even inform him of the nature of the alleged escapement. No doubt, at p. 246, the Judicial Committee commented on the unhappy and un-grammatioal phraseology employed in Section 84 of the Act as it then stood. We are not, however, concerned with this question.
Section 31 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs The Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Company ... on 4 November, 1929
The above three decisions support our conclusion which is based on a clear and plain reading of the two sections, namely, Sections 34 and 24 (3). On behalf of the assessee, Mr. O. T. G. Nambiar has relied on some decisions but most of them relate to the procedure that is attracted by the language employed in the latter part of Section 34 of the Act. The decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency v. Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co., 57 I. A. 21 : (A. I. R. (17) 1930 P. C. 56) has no bearing at all on the construction of Section 34 of the Act, as it relates to the valuation of the opening stock and the closing stock for the purpose of assessment and the effect of Section 13 of the Act.