Case Details

Citation(s)
1968 SLG 143 1968 SLD 143 (1968) 70 ITR 314
Rajasthan High Court
IT CIVIL REFERENCE No. 31 OF 1962, MARCH 27, 1968
D.M. BHANDARI, ACTG., CJ AND G.M. MEHTA, J.
S.C. Bhandari for the Applicant. D.P. Gupta for the
Respondent

Commissioner of IncomE tax

VS

Chaganlal Durga Prashad

Law:

Section:

Section 4, read with sections 182 to 186 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 3, read with sections 23(5) & 35(5) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Firm - Assessable as - Assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56 - Whether section 3 of 1922 Act impliedly prohibits double taxation and if one of entities mentioned in section 3 of 1922 Act has been taxed, it is not open to taxation department to tax another entity for same income - Held, yes - Whether where a firm is a registered firm, then proper procedure will be to assess income of firm and then to assess true income of partners and make necessary rectifications, if required subsequently - Held, yes - Assessee a partnership firm, filed its returns accompanied by application for registration/renewal of registration, under section 26A -Its partners had separately been assessed - ITO treating it as not a genuine partnership refused registration and assessed it as AOP - Tribunal held it as a genuine firm and allowed registration - It accordingly annulled assessments for both years, on grounds that ITO ought not to have made assessments on firms after making assessments on partners direct in respect of their respective share of profits from firm; and also that assessments were made on AOP whereas correct status was that of a firm - Whether proper thing for Tribunal to do was not to drop proceedings relating to assessment of assessee-firm but to proceed on to assess its income on basis that it was a registered firm in accordance with section 23(5) as assessee itself had prayed that it should be assessed as a firm - Held, yes Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 66 of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - High Court - Reference to - Whether it is not open to High Court to raise new question for decision, but if Tribunal intends to refer to High Court a point of law on which it had formulated a question which is not worded in a precise manner so as to bring in forefront point which it intends to refer to High Court, High Court is competent to resettle or reframe question so as to bring out real point which Tribunal intends to refer - Held, yes FACTS For the assessment years 1954-55…
🔒
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