Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Wine Chamber on 22 November, 1991
14. Undisputedly, assessee in this case has entered into a
notional partnership with his sons for getting business assistance
and has not assigned, sublet, mortgage, transfer of mining lease
right, title or interest therein nor there is an iota of evidence that the
sons of assessee being partner in notional partnership with the
assessee have directly or indirectly financed to a substantial extent
and have substantially controlled the mining business of the
assessee, so in the given circumstances, by following the ratio of
the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Wine Chamber (supra), we are
of the considered view that CIT has erred in invoking the
provisions contained u/s 263 by misinterpreting the provisions
contained u/s 37(1)(b) of the Mining Concessions Rules, 1960. No
other fact or evidence has been brought on record by the CIT to
9 ITA No.307/CTK./2016
ITA No.308/CTK./2016
prove that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) was
erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Md. Warasat Hussain vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 February, 1971
The view of the Patna High
Court in Md. Warasat Hussain v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR
718 and CIT v. Narpati Khan and Co. [1974] 97 ITR
645 that where the licence for trading in liquor stood
in the names of only some of the partners of a firm
and was not transferred to the firm, there was no
illegality in the partnership. But where the licence
itself is transferred to the partnership, it may result
in an assignment of part of the licence, and section
23 may come into force. In the instant case, it is
accepted that the licence continued to stand in the
name of Ramesh Chotolal Thacker."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... vs Narpati Khan And Co. on 13 September, 1973
The view of the Patna High
Court in Md. Warasat Hussain v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR
718 and CIT v. Narpati Khan and Co. [1974] 97 ITR
645 that where the licence for trading in liquor stood
in the names of only some of the partners of a firm
and was not transferred to the firm, there was no
illegality in the partnership. But where the licence
itself is transferred to the partnership, it may result
in an assignment of part of the licence, and section
23 may come into force. In the instant case, it is
accepted that the licence continued to stand in the
name of Ramesh Chotolal Thacker."
Jer And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. on 13 January, 1971
In the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Wine Chamber
(supra), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court further returned the
findings by relying upon the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Jer and Co. vs. CIT - (1971) 79 ITR 546 (SC)
as under :-
1