Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Prem Narain Agarwal And Another, ... vs Income-Tax Officer, "F" Ward, Agra. on 7 October, 1965
It was also contended before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that whatever income that accrued at the time of the former Receiver (M. Narasimha Rao), was not liable to be assessed in the hands of the present Receiver. Reliance was placed upon the two Allahabad High Court judgments reported in Prem Narain Agarwal v. ITO [1966] 61 ITR 57 and Gauri Shanker Sahi v. State of U.P. [1970] 77 ITR 827. This argument or objection was also upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Ultimately, he held that inasmuch as the assessment framed against the Receiver was invalid, the impugned assessment was cancelled. Since he was cancelling the assessment, he refrained himself to deal with other grounds on merit. Thus, he allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the assessee-receiver.
Gauri Shanker Sahi vs State Of U.P. on 6 November, 1968
It was also contended before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that whatever income that accrued at the time of the former Receiver (M. Narasimha Rao), was not liable to be assessed in the hands of the present Receiver. Reliance was placed upon the two Allahabad High Court judgments reported in Prem Narain Agarwal v. ITO [1966] 61 ITR 57 and Gauri Shanker Sahi v. State of U.P. [1970] 77 ITR 827. This argument or objection was also upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Ultimately, he held that inasmuch as the assessment framed against the Receiver was invalid, the impugned assessment was cancelled. Since he was cancelling the assessment, he refrained himself to deal with other grounds on merit. Thus, he allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the assessee-receiver.
Section 52 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1