TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses firm's application, imposes costs. Jurisdiction, compliance, and authority clarified.</h1> <h3>In Re : Abhey Ram Chunni Lal</h3> The court dismissed the firm's application, imposing costs on the applicant. The decision was based on jurisdiction, compliance with filing requirements, ... - Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the income-tax officer at Benares to call for a return of income from Jaunpur and Piparia branches.2. Compliance with the provisions of Section 22(2) in filing the return.3. Adequacy of time given to the assessee to comply with the order.4. Continuation of the old practice of demanding returns from Piparia and Jaunpur branches.Analysis:1. The first issue revolves around the jurisdiction of the income-tax officer at Benares to demand a return of income from Jaunpur and Piparia branches. The court referred to a previous decision and held that the officer had jurisdiction over all branches since the head office was in Benares. Section 64(4) was discussed to emphasize the preservation of the local officer's powers under Section 64(1).2. The second point raised was regarding the compliance with Section 22(2) in filing the return. The court determined that a return failing to cover the total income of the assessee as required by the rule was not considered a valid return. Section 23(4) was cited to justify a best judgment assessment in cases of non-compliance with Section 22(2), highlighting the distinction between genuine returns and incomplete ones.3. Regarding the adequacy of time given to the assessee, the court concluded that the assessee had sufficient time to comply with the order, indicating that the timeline provided was reasonable and appropriate.4. The final issue raised was the continuation of the old practice of demanding returns from Piparia and Jaunpur branches. The court clarified that such decisions fell within the jurisdiction of the income-tax officer at the headquarters, emphasizing that the court had no authority in this matter.In conclusion, the application made by the firm was dismissed by the court, with costs imposed on the applicant. The judgment provided detailed reasoning for rejecting the application based on the issues of jurisdiction, compliance with filing requirements, adequacy of time given, and the decision-making authority regarding the demand for returns from specific branches.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
