Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.24 seconds)Rajah Manyam Meenakshamma vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 February, 1956
One of these cases is Rajah Manyam Meenakshamma v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which has already been dealt with by me above.
Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 46 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Maddula Appa Rao And Ors. vs Income Tax Officer, Eluru And Anr. on 4 December, 1958
The other case which took the same view is Maddula Appa Rao v. Income-tax Officer, Eluru.
C. A. Abraham, Uppoottil, Kottayam vs The Income-Tax Officer, Kottayam And ... on 29 November, 1960
In C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam the Supreme Court examined all the section in Chapter IV including section 23B and at page 429 observed that the word "assessment" in Chapter IV had been used in its widest connotation, intended not merely to declare the liability to computation of income, but also for application of tax liability as well as to the machinery thereof. It follows that in the case of an assessee under section 24B the liability is not merely to assessment but also to enforcement of that liability under the relevant provisions of the Act including liability to penalty under section 46(1) and to enforcement of liability under section 46(2).
E. Alfred vs Additional Income-Tax Officer, Circle ... on 15 February, 1956
The decision in Alfreds case was also followed by the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Abdul Rahiman Sait. With the utmost respect however, I do not share the view of the learned judges of the Madras and the Kerala High Court in these cases.