Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 256

(a) Income-tax-----Reference---Application for reference---Multiple appeals arising out of one order of assessment made on one assessee for one year under one enactment---Single application is sufficient---Appeals relating to same assessee for different years or for same years but under different enactments ---Separate application required for each case---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256---[Union of India v. ITAT (1987) 164 ITR 600 (MP) and Kusum Ansal v. CIT (1991) 190 ITR 24 (Delhi) dissented from]. When multiple appeals are disposed of by the Tribunal by a consolidated order arising out of an order of assessment made on the assessee for one year, a single reference application is sufficient, followed by a single application under section 256(2) covering the questions raised both in the assessee's and departmental appeals. Narhari v. Shanker AIR 1953 SC 419 and (K.G.) Khosla & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (1966) 17 STC 473 (SC) rel. [Observations to the contrary in Jacob Mathew v. State of Kerala (1994) 93 STC 90 (Ker.) and V.K. Hameed & Co. v. State of Kerala (1994) 93 STC 107 (Ker.) held to be per incuriam.] Appeals relating to the same assessee for different years of assessment, or even for the same year under different enactments, will require separate reference applications in relation to each assessment though the appeals might have been consolidated and disposed of together. J.K. Agents (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 793 (MP); Nawal Bihari Lal Goel v. CIT (1983) 140 ITR 979 (Delhi) and Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream Co. v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 188 (Delhi) fol. Union of India v. ITAT (1987) 164 ITR 600 (MP) and Kusum Ansal v. CIT (1991) 190 ITR 24 (Delhi) dissented from. (b) Income-tax--- ----Reference---Income---Accounting---Estimate of profits whether justified---Question of law---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256 Held, that the question whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the estimate of the profits despite the assessee maintaining accounts for his business was a question of law. CIT v. ITAT (1975) 99 ITR 552 (Delhi) and Elite Jewellery v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) (1993) 91 STC 354 (Ker.)…

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