Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1997 1991 SLD 1997 (1991) 191 ITR 248
Allahabad High Court

B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. AND V.N. MEHROTRA, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Wealth Tax

v.

P.N. Mehta

Law:

Section:

Section 18(1)(a), read with section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - Penalty - For late filing of return - Assessment years 1972-73 to 1980-81 - Whether question as to whether Tribunal was justified in law, in excusing delay in filing return for the assessment year 1972-73 when application for extension of time was rejected by Assessing Officer and assessee was intimated accordingly, was a question of law arising out of Tribunal's order - Held, yes - Whether question as to whether Tribunal was, justified in directing to condone period of delay for penalty under section 18(1)(a) for assessment year 1973-74 from date of filing of return for 1972-73 and for assessment years 1974-75 to 1980-81 with effect from 5-9-1980 when return for 1973-74 was filed, was a question of law arising out of Tribunal's order - Held, yes - Whether question as to whether Tribunal was justified in canceling penalty for assessment year 1972-73 and 1973-74 to 1980-81 when there was no reasonable cause with assessee, was a question of law arising out of Tribunal's order - Held, yes (1991) 191 ITR 222 (ALL.) HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD Hapur Printing Press v. Commissioner of Income-tax B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, C. J. AND V.N. MEHROTRA, J. IT APPLICATION NO. 122 OF 1990 DECEMBER 5, 1990 Section 4, read with section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income - Chargeable as - Whether question as to whether entire receipts in respect of supply of printed material could be taken as income without allowing any deduction in respect of various inputs in form of paper, printing charges and other incidental expenses was to be referred to High Court- Held, yes JUDGMENT After hearing learned counsel both for the assessee and for the Revenue, we are of the opinion that, of the five questions sought to be raised, only one question, i.e., question No. 3, arises from the order of the Tribunal. Question No. 3 reads as under: "Whether, on facts and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that entire receipts of Rs. 46,238 in respect of supply of printed material could be taken as income without allowing any deduction in respect of various inputs in the form of paper, printing charges and other incidental expenses…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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