Kolkata Court August 1982 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M.M. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1982
Reported in: [1984]146ITR347(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal to this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the impositionof penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71 was justified ?'2. The assessee is an individual who had shown income from commission, share of profits and director's remuneration. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 1970-71 declaring an income of Rs. 34,250. During the course of assessment proceedings the ITO found that Shri Bhupen Mehta and Shri Mukesh Mehta, the minor sons of the assessee, filed returns of income for the assessment year 1970-71 showing income from share dealings and share speculation. The income in the case of Shri Bhupen Mehta, as per profit and loss account, was Rs. 10,340 and that of Shri Mukesh...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kolbeong Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR512(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji J. 1. In this reference the following question has been referred to us by the Tribunal: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that before making an assessment under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the asscssee should be given an opportunity of being heard under Section 142(3) of the said Act, in respect of any material gathered on the basis of an enquiry made under Section 142(2) and proposed to be utilised for the purpose of assessment andon that view in confirming the order of the Appellate Asst. Commissioner setting aside the assessment made under Section 144?'2. The assessment years involved in this reference are 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. In the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee submitted a return under Section 139(2) showing a loss of Rs. 23,550. The ITO issued a notice to the assessee under Section 142(1) requiring the assessee to produce the statutory books but the assessee committed de...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR598(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred to this court the following two questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount realised by the assessee from its tenants by way of occupiers' share of property tax did not form part of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year within the meaning of Section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the same was not of the character of income in the hands of the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have held that, in any case, the net excess collection of occupiers' share of the property tax from the tenants in excess of what was made over to the Municipal Corporation was liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee ?' 2. The facts and circumstances have been set out in the statement of facts and the Tribunal in its order after considering the rival submiss...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›