| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 540 1974 SLD 540 (1974) 95 ITR 109 |
Madras High Court
TAX CASE No. 39 OF 1968 (REFERENCE No. 10 OF 1968), JULY 31, 1973
G. RAMANUJAM AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
S.V. Subramaniam, Subbaraya Aiyar Sethuraman and Padmanabhan for the Applicant. V. Balasubrahmanyan and J. Jayaraman for the
Respondent
TAX CASE No. 39 OF 1968 (REFERENCE No. 10 OF 1968), JULY 31, 1973
G. RAMANUJAM AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
S.V. Subramaniam, Subbaraya Aiyar Sethuraman and Padmanabhan for the Applicant. V. Balasubrahmanyan and J. Jayaraman for the
Respondent
R.S.S. Shanmugam Pillai & Sons
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 4A(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Residential status - Assessment year 1960-61 and 1961-62 - Both partners of firm mere staying in Ceylon - One of them used to visit India as his family was staying in India - ITO held that firm was not assessable as resident because this partner while staying in India, used to write letters to other partners - Before Tribunal firm produced all relevant letters - Tribunal, though refused to consider this evidence at Appellate stage still on verification opined that for proper adjudication, there letters were to be considered - Whether Tribunal should re-hear appeal and record a clear finding about control and management of business of assessee, firm - Held, yes Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 33 of the [Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Appellate Tribunal - Powers of - Assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 - Whether where Tribunal finds that documents filed as additional evidence are quite relevant for purpose of deciding issue before it, it would be well within its powers to admit evidence, consider same or remit matters to lower authorities for purpose of finding out its genuineness and considering relevancy of same, but if Tribunal finds that evidence adduced at stage of appeal is not quite relevant or that it is not necessary for proper disposal of appeal before it, in that case, Tribunal could straightaway reject evidence, which was sought to be produced for first time at stage of appeal - Held, yes FACTS The assessee firm was carrying on business in general goods in Ceylon. The assessee was consisted of two partners S and P. S was permanent resident of Ceylon. P though stayed in Ceylon used to visit India as his family was staying in India. The assessee filed its return in the status of a 'non-resident'. The ITO examined the partner P and he gave a statement to the effect that the other partner used to write letters consulting him regarding the management of the business. On the strength of this statement the ITO held that the control and management of the firm's business was not wholly outside India during the relevant…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492