| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1960 SLG 333 1960 SLD 333 (1960) 39 ITR 159 |
Madras High Court
CASE REFERRED No. 75 OF 1957, NOVEMBER 24, 1959
RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ
R. Venkataram for the Applicant. C.S. Rama Rao Sahib for the
Respondent
CASE REFERRED No. 75 OF 1957, NOVEMBER 24, 1959
RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ
R. Venkataram for the Applicant. C.S. Rama Rao Sahib for the
Respondent
M.R.M. Periannan Chettiar
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - [Corresponding to section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922], read with rules 12,27,28 and 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946 - Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to - Assessment year 1948-49 - Whether existence of appeal which related only to distinct matter in controversy would entitle Tribunal to take up and decide appeal in favour of appellant on basis of ground not in controversy - Held, no - Whether Tribunal can remand case back to AAC only when it has decided that it is necessary to set aside order of AAC, and that could be done only if there is material, and after considering that material, Tribunal decided that AAC was wrong - Held, yes - Whether use of words 'dismissed', struck off', 'recorded' etc do not, by themselves, indicate termination of proceedings and those words should be understood in light of context to see whether there has been final disposal of execution petition - Held, yes FACTS The assessee and his nephew formed members of a Hindu Undivided Family. The nephew executed a release deed in favour of the assessee in the year 1935, admitting his disqualification. The family owned (1) properties, (2) a money lending business at Karaikudi, with a branch in Penang, (3) a share in a partnership firm and (4) shares in certain companies. Besides his interest in the family properties, the assessee owned, in his own individual right, (1) a business in stocks and shares, (2) an interest as a partner in a shop which had its head office at Karaikudi and a branch at Penang, and (3) some shares in certain Companies. The assessee had been assessed to income-tax in two capacities: (1) of as the karta of a Hindu undivided family with respect to the income from family properties and (2) as an individual in respect of the income from his separate property. The nephew died on 12-3-1948. For the assessment year 1948-49(the account year being 13-4-1947, to 12-4-1948), the assessee submitted two returns, one on behalf of the family and the other for himself. He, however, claimed that after 12-3-1948, he should be assessed only as an individual on all the sources of income. The ITO accepted the assessee's claim, 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