Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.48 seconds)The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Income Tax Officer vs Ch. Atchaiah on 11 December, 1995
This contention of the assessee, in our opinion has no force-firstly because each year is a separate year and the principle of res judicata and estoppel does not apply to income-tax proceedings; secondly because in the earlier year there is no discussion on the issue and, therefore, the AO did not take any decision of his own and proceeded on the assumption that whatever was claimed by the assessee was correct; thirdly because in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of ITO v. Ch. Actchaiah 218 ITR 239, the right persona lone is to be assessed even though the income was declared and assessed in the hands of another person or that it was not assessed in the earlier year. In the words of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, "the person lawfully liable to be taxed can claim no immunity because the AO has taxed the said income in the hands of another person contrary to law. Similar would be the position for an assessment in the subsequent or another year"; fourthly because there is no heroism in perpetuating the mistake as said by Justice Bhagwati in he case of Distributors (Baroda) P.Ltd. 155 ITR 120.
The General Clauses Act, 1897
The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006
Maharashtra Court-fees Act.
M/S. Meera Company,Ludhiana vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Punjab, ... on 11 March, 1997
31. Similar was the observation in the resolution dated 25-6-1980. These extracts (SIC) indications that a volition was there on the part of the beneficiaries for the distribution of the property to be held by the BOIs of the two beneficiaries. In view of this, even though the distributees are called BOIs they are in fact, association of persons within the wider meaning given to the term "association of persons" by Section 167A of the Act which, as aforesaid excludes from its ambit only a company or a co-operative society. All other combination of individuals and non-individuals would be covered within the meaning of "association of persons" and a maximum marginal rate is to be applied. The decision relied upon by the Dy.CIT(A) in his order namely of the Tribunal in the case of S.C. and others, of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Harivadan Tribhovandas 106 ITR 494 and of Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Cement would not be of much help to the assessee in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Meera and Co. (supra) and the wider meaning adopted for the terms "association of persons" by Section 167A of the Act.