Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.51 seconds)Section 22 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Harakchand Makanji And Co. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 March, 1948
5. Turning to the authorities on which reliance has been placed, there is a direct decision of this Court reported in Harakchand Makanji and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where we held that though the scheme of the Income-tax Act was that the assessment for each year was self-contained and therefore all notices should be served under section 43 in respect of each assessment year, such notice need not be served where it was made unnecessary and superfluous by the submission of a return admitting the position and status of an agent of a non-resident. In this case also there was no notice under section 22(2) and a return was made by the assessee admitting his position and status as an agent of the non-resident.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Ramsukh Motilal on 24 September, 1954
6. Then the third judgment which was referred to is the judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramsukh Motilal. We were there dealing with a notice under section 34 and we said that whereas section 22 was a procedural section and the failure to give notice or a defect in a notice was a procedural defect, in the case of section 34 it was not a procedural defect but was a failure to comply with a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction. It is not possible to suggest that section 43 stands on the same footing as section 34. Section 43 is procedural, where as section 34 is a section dealing with the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer and lays down the conditions which have got to be complied with before that jurisdiction can be assumed.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
1