Law:

Section:

Section 147, read with sections 153 and 256, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 34, read with sections 34(3) and 66, of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Income escaping assessment - General - Assessments years 1947-48 to 1949-50 - Petitioners, who were members of a HUF, were also partners in certain firms and claimed that they were partners in aforesaid firms within their individual capacity and not as representatives of their HUF - However, department ignored individual returns and assessed income returned by them as income of HUF - AAC as also Tribunal confirmed decision of ITO - On reference, High Court held that petitioners were partners in their individual capacities and that they were not representing HUF - Thereafter department issued notices under section 34, read with second proviso to section 34(3) of 1922 Act - Whether in appeals filed by HUF and ultimate reference to High Court, petitioners, who were admittedly coparceners, must be held to have been parties thereto and, therefore, any finding given therein could be given effect to against them by invoking second proviso to section 34(3) of 1922 Act both in its unamended and amended forms Held, yes - Whether though jurisdiction of High Court u/s 66 of 1922 Act is advisory but in giving decision High Court inevitably must first arrive at its findings and only after doing so can it formulate and give its opinion on question or questions referred to it - Held, yes Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - High Court - Reference to - Assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50 - Whether though jurisdiction of High Court u/s 66 of 1922 Act is whether a direction could be given by High Court while passing an order under section 66 - Held, yes FACTS An Hindu undivided family consisted of 'M' as a karta, his brother 'D' and their sons. For the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50, 'M', who was a partner in a firm, claimed that he was a partner in the said firm in his individual capacity and not as the representative of the Hindu undivided family. Similar claims was made by 'D' and son of 'M', who were also partners in a firm. For the relevant assessment years each one of the petitioner…

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