Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.70 seconds)Section 84 in The Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 [Entire Act]
Union Coal Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta. on 16 November, 1967
8. Again, in Union Coal Co. Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1968] 70 ITR 45, 52 (Cal), dealing with the appellate powers, it was held as follows :
Thvl Bombay Ammonia Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 March, 1976
12. Reliance placed by the department on Bombay Ammonia Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu is ill founded. That was a case in which the suo motu powers were sought to be exercised by the Board of Revenue. At that stage, the assessee who had acquiesced in the original assessment sought to claim exemption that certain portion of the assessment related to works contracts and, therefore, the same was not taxable. In rejecting that contention, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held at page 521 thus :
Pt. Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lucknow, ... on 24 February, 1967
Having regard to such a power, this question ought to have been considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, well-founded in his submissions. The authorities cited by him also support his stand. There is a case in which under more or less similar circumstances it was held in Pandit Sheo Nath Prasad Sharma v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 66 ITR 647, 651, 652 (All) thus :
Giridharlal Parasmal vs The State Of Mysore on 24 February, 1967
In Giridharlal Parasmal v. State of Mysore [1967] 20 STC 64 (Mys) in the return of the assessee, exempted turnover was included by mistake and it was assessed. The question was whether that mistake could be corrected at the appellate stage. It was held therein as follows :