Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court decision on expenditure-tax assessments: dismissal, inclusion of spouse's expenses, valid reopening, no discrimination.

        HH. Prince Azam Jha Bahadur (Decd. Through Legal Representatives) Versus Expenditure-Tax Officer, Hyderabad

        HH. Prince Azam Jha Bahadur (Decd. Through Legal Representatives) Versus Expenditure-Tax Officer, Hyderabad - [1972] 83 ITR 92, 1972 AIR 2319, 1972 (1) ... Issues Involved:
        1. Interpretation of the term "dependant" under the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957.
        2. Validity of the reopening of assessments under Section 16 of the Act.
        3. Legislative competence to enact the Expenditure-tax Act.
        4. Alleged discrimination between individual assessees and Hindu undivided families.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Interpretation of the Term "Dependant":
        The primary issue was the interpretation of the term "dependant" under Section 2(g) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, as amended by the Finance Act, 1959. The assessee contended that his wife, who had her own properties and substantial income, could not be regarded as a dependant under Section 2(g), and therefore, her expenditure should not be included under Section 4(ii) for computing the assessee's liability to tax. The court examined the changes in the language of Section 2(g) before and after the amendment. Before the amendment, "dependant" meant the spouse or child wholly or mainly dependent on the assessee. After the amendment, it included the spouse or minor child and any person wholly or mainly dependent on the assessee. The court disagreed with the views of the Madras and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, which had supported the assessee's interpretation. The court held that the amended definition clearly included the spouse or minor child as dependants, irrespective of their financial independence.

        2. Validity of the Reopening of Assessments:
        The second issue was the validity of the notices issued by the Expenditure-tax Officer for reopening the assessments under Section 16 of the Act. The assessee argued that there was no omission or failure on his part to disclose all material facts, and the reopening was merely due to a change in the officer's opinion. The court noted that the notices and subsequent correspondence indicated the reopening under Section 16(a), but the pleadings and affidavits also covered Section 16(b). The court found that the Expenditure-tax Officer had reason to believe that the expenditure chargeable to tax had escaped assessment based on new information received on May 5, 1962. Therefore, the notices were valid under Section 16(b), as they were issued within the four-year limit.

        3. Legislative Competence:
        The assessee contended that the Act was void ab initio for want of legislative competence, arguing that there was no entry in List I or List III of the Seventh Schedule relating to tax on expenditure. The court rejected this argument, agreeing with the majority decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that entry 97 in List I, the residuary entry, covered the tax imposed by the Act.

        4. Alleged Discrimination:
        The assessee argued that there was no reasonable basis for distinguishing between individual assessees and Hindu undivided families, leading to unjustifiable discrimination. The court held that the two classes of assessees were distinct and that the different treatment in tax legislation was justified. The court found no infirmity in the reasoning that the Act's objective was to augment revenue, encourage thrift, and avoid wasteful expenditure, and that different tax treatments did not constitute discrimination under Article 14.

        Conclusion:
        The court dismissed Civil Appeals Nos. 1794 to 1796 of 1967 and allowed Civil Appeals Nos. 2389 to 2391 of 1968. The expenditure incurred by the assessee's wife was includible in his assessment for computing the expenditure-tax. The reopening of assessments was valid under Section 16(b) of the Act. The Expenditure-tax Act was within legislative competence, and there was no discrimination between individual assessees and Hindu undivided families. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found