Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.92 seconds)Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Kishoresinh Kalyansinh Solanki on 6 April, 1960
In Commr. of Income-tax v. Kishoresingh Kalyansingh Solanki, 1960-39 IT R 522 (Bom), S.T. Desai and V.S. Desai, JJ., observed at page 532 as follows;
L. Jugal Kishore vs Wealth Tax Officer Special Circle, 'C' ... on 23 March, 1961
In Jugal Kishore v. Wealth Tax Officer, AIR 1961 All 487 (FB) I had taken the same view and had expressed myself in the following words:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sarwan Kumar. on 14 February, 1945
A Hindu undivided family is an association of persons as distinct from an artificial association (See Commr. of Income-tax v. Sarwan Kumar, 1945-13 ITR 361 : (AIR 1945 All 286) which was followed by the Andhra High Court in N.V. Subrahmanyam v. Additional Wealth Tax Officer, AIR 1961 Andh Pra 75, in Ram Kumar Ram Niwas v. Commr. of Income-tax, 1952-22 ITR 474: (AIR 1953 All 150) and AIR 1961 All 487 (FB). The Hindu undivided family is not a separate legal entity from those who constitute it as is a company from its share-holders or a corporation from its members. Consequently in the appeal that was filed on behalf of the Hindu undivided family by Laxman Prakash as Karta he and all the other members who constituted the joint Hindu family were the appellants. It cannot, therefore, be said that Laxman Prakash was not an appellant before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In this view of the matter even if I accept the interpretation put upon the words "fresh assessment" suggested by Mr. Pathak the order directing a fresh enquiry and assessment on Laxman Prakash in his individual status could be passed under Section 31(3) of the Act.
N.V. Subrahmanyam vs Additional Wealth Tax Officer, Eluru on 19 January, 1960
A Hindu undivided family is an association of persons as distinct from an artificial association (See Commr. of Income-tax v. Sarwan Kumar, 1945-13 ITR 361 : (AIR 1945 All 286) which was followed by the Andhra High Court in N.V. Subrahmanyam v. Additional Wealth Tax Officer, AIR 1961 Andh Pra 75, in Ram Kumar Ram Niwas v. Commr. of Income-tax, 1952-22 ITR 474: (AIR 1953 All 150) and AIR 1961 All 487 (FB). The Hindu undivided family is not a separate legal entity from those who constitute it as is a company from its share-holders or a corporation from its members. Consequently in the appeal that was filed on behalf of the Hindu undivided family by Laxman Prakash as Karta he and all the other members who constituted the joint Hindu family were the appellants. It cannot, therefore, be said that Laxman Prakash was not an appellant before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In this view of the matter even if I accept the interpretation put upon the words "fresh assessment" suggested by Mr. Pathak the order directing a fresh enquiry and assessment on Laxman Prakash in his individual status could be passed under Section 31(3) of the Act.
Ram Kumar Ram Niwas Nanpara vs Commr. Of Income-Tax, U.P. And Ajmer ... on 29 August, 1952
A Hindu undivided family is an association of persons as distinct from an artificial association (See Commr. of Income-tax v. Sarwan Kumar, 1945-13 ITR 361 : (AIR 1945 All 286) which was followed by the Andhra High Court in N.V. Subrahmanyam v. Additional Wealth Tax Officer, AIR 1961 Andh Pra 75, in Ram Kumar Ram Niwas v. Commr. of Income-tax, 1952-22 ITR 474: (AIR 1953 All 150) and AIR 1961 All 487 (FB). The Hindu undivided family is not a separate legal entity from those who constitute it as is a company from its share-holders or a corporation from its members. Consequently in the appeal that was filed on behalf of the Hindu undivided family by Laxman Prakash as Karta he and all the other members who constituted the joint Hindu family were the appellants. It cannot, therefore, be said that Laxman Prakash was not an appellant before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In this view of the matter even if I accept the interpretation put upon the words "fresh assessment" suggested by Mr. Pathak the order directing a fresh enquiry and assessment on Laxman Prakash in his individual status could be passed under Section 31(3) of the Act.