Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)
M.P. Jayaram vs First Income-Tax Officer on 28 February, 1991 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Murlidhar Jhawar And Purna Ginning & ... on 4 March, 1962

18. The principle is clear. The income is subject to tax in the hands of the same person only once. If an association or firm is taxed in respect of its income, the same income cannot be charged again in the hands of the members individually or vice versa. This position is made clear by the Supreme Court first in the case of CIT v. Murlidhar Jhawar & Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory [1966] 60ITR 95 which has been followed by the same court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raza B uland Sugar Co. Ltd. [ 1979] 118 ITR 50. These decisions have been followed by the High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta to which case law we have already made a reference. The Income-tax Officer having assessed the respective share income of the individual members, it was not open for him to proceed against the association as a whole on the total income. Even from this standpoint of diagnosis the impugned assessment made by the Income-tax Officer is required to be annulled. For the foregoing, the assessment made in the status of AOP by the Income-tax Officer is annulled. We also hold that there cannot be an assessment either in the status of BOI and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this behalf is set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

G.N. Sunanda vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 March, 1988

15. After the death of Puttaswamy, the HUF had a defined share (9/13th). So the class I heirs of Puttaswamy. The HUF and class I heirs were all tenants-in-common as we have indicated above. When this position is reached, it would be clear that there can be no AOP or BOI as explained by the Karnataka High Court in G.V. Sunanda's case (supra) and the Kerala High Court in the case of A.P. Parukutty Mooppilamma (supra). The objection of the assessee is well founded and the Income-tax Officer could not have made an assessment in the status of AOP, much less the Commissioner (Appeals) could have changed it to BOI. The impugned assessment is liable to be quashed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Venkatakrishna Rice Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 March, 1981

16. There is yet another point which needs our consideration. To repeat, the Income-tax Officer had made substantive assessments against the members and the major HUF in respect of their share income. Subsequently he took a step to assess the whole income in the status of AOP and to this Shri Nagin Khincha has objection. The Madras High Court has in the case of Venkatakrishna Rice Co. (supra) held :
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 142 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A.P. Parukutty Mooppilamma And Ors. on 30 August, 1983

15. After the death of Puttaswamy, the HUF had a defined share (9/13th). So the class I heirs of Puttaswamy. The HUF and class I heirs were all tenants-in-common as we have indicated above. When this position is reached, it would be clear that there can be no AOP or BOI as explained by the Karnataka High Court in G.V. Sunanda's case (supra) and the Kerala High Court in the case of A.P. Parukutty Mooppilamma (supra). The objection of the assessee is well founded and the Income-tax Officer could not have made an assessment in the status of AOP, much less the Commissioner (Appeals) could have changed it to BOI. The impugned assessment is liable to be quashed.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 17 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Anr vs Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur on 27 February, 1979

18. The principle is clear. The income is subject to tax in the hands of the same person only once. If an association or firm is taxed in respect of its income, the same income cannot be charged again in the hands of the members individually or vice versa. This position is made clear by the Supreme Court first in the case of CIT v. Murlidhar Jhawar & Purna Ginning & Pressing Factory [1966] 60ITR 95 which has been followed by the same court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raza B uland Sugar Co. Ltd. [ 1979] 118 ITR 50. These decisions have been followed by the High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta to which case law we have already made a reference. The Income-tax Officer having assessed the respective share income of the individual members, it was not open for him to proceed against the association as a whole on the total income. Even from this standpoint of diagnosis the impugned assessment made by the Income-tax Officer is required to be annulled. For the foregoing, the assessment made in the status of AOP by the Income-tax Officer is annulled. We also hold that there cannot be an assessment either in the status of BOI and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this behalf is set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 25 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

N.P. Saraswathi Ammal And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 11 January, 1982

The decision of the Madras High Court in the case of N.P. Saraswathi Ammal (supra) is distinguished by their Lordships of the Karnataka High Court in the case of G.N. Sunanda (supra) for the late minors had allowed the integrity of the business to continue which, as the High Court points out, was a clear indication of the mother and children keeping in step as a body of individuals.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1   2 Next