Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 66(4)

Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 66(4), of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - High Court - Reference to - Assessment year 1942-43 - On reference of dispute High Court took view that before it could render an answer to impugned question it would like Tribunal to furnish to High Court further facts and clarification - After receiving supplementary statement, matter was argued and High Court in view of a recent decision of Supreme Court passed in meantime referred matter back again to Tribunal - Tribunal submitted its second supplementary statement - whether High Court had no jurisdiction to direct Tribunal to collect additional material evidence which was not on record when question was framed by Tribunal and sent it to High Court under section 66(1) of 1922 Act as a part of supplementary statement of case - Held, yes FACTS The appellant was a "non-resident". It carried on business of manufacturing and selling textile goods in the Baroda State. The operations in relation to all sales of goods manufactured by the appellant's mill were completed at the appellant's premises at Petlad on the footing of ex-mill delivery in every case. The ITO held that sale proceeds in respect of the sales aggregating Sale proceeds actually received in the accounting year through one 'J', Sale proceeds through British Indian banks through drafts, and Sale proceeds collected by collecting cheques on British Indian banks and hundis on British Indian shroffs and merchants were received by the appellant in British India. It was with the last item that the present appeal was concerned. In fact, in giving this second direction, the High Court observed that when it had called for the first supplementary statement of the case, it did not have the benefit of the decision of this court in the case of Ogale Glass Works Ltd. [1954] 25 ITR 529 ; [1955] 1 SCR 185 and that after the said decision was pronounced, the position with regard to receipt of the cheque by the appellant had been considerably simplified. The High Court took the view that before it could render an answer to the question in relation to the said item, it would like the Tribunal to furnish to the…

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