Law:

Section:

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for - Assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45 - Whether service of requisite notice is a condition precedent for validity of re-assessment made under section 34 of 1922 Act - Held, yes - Whether a notice prescribed by section 34 of 1922 Act cannot be regarded as a mere procedural requirement; it is only if said notice is served on assessee as required then ITO would be justified in taking proceedings against him - Held, yes - Whether a notice under section 34 of 1922 Act for re-opening of firm's assessment served upon one of partners is a valid notice - Held, yes - Whether where a registered firm had not given notice under section 25(2) of 1922 Act of discontinuance of its business and notice was served on a partner on behalf of firm for re-assessment under section 34 of 1922 Act which was not objected to by other partners, it could not be said that proceedings taken under section 34(1)(a) of 1922 Act were invalid on ground that notice of those proceedings was not served on other partners of firm - Held, yes Section 2(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 2(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Assessee - Assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45 - Whether 'assessee' defined in section 2(2) of 1922 Act includes a firm - Held, yes - Whether determination of share income of each partner of firm under section 23(5) of 1922 Act, as it stood before amendment in 1956, does not mean that firm ceases to be an assessee - Held, yes Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922], read with rule 6B of Income-tax Rules, 1922 - Firm - Position prior to 1-4-1993 - Assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45 - Whether rule 6B deals with cases where ITO is satisfied that a certificate of registration has been granted under rule 4 or under rule 6A without there being a genuine firm in existence and, therefore, rule 6B cannot be said to be inconsistent with provisions of section 23(4) of 1922 Act - Held, yes FACTS Three firms were carrying on business in yarn and…

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