1975 (12) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, made at the instance of the assessees. When this reference was called out for hearing the applicant-assessees were absent. A question arises as to what we should do with the question of law, which has been submitted to us by the Tribunal in this reference in the case stated by it. Sub-section (5) of section 34 of the said Act provides as follows: "The H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rdance with the judgment of the High Court but also to have a decision which is binding on it in future cases on the question of law decided by the High Court. It, however, appears to us that it is not necessary for this High Court to decide the questions of law referred to it in all references academically, and to no practical effect. This particular reference has been made at the instance of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Courts on identical provisions contained in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Section 66(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is in terms the same as section 34(5) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The view which we have taken in this case was taken by the Calcutta High Court in M.M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax[1955] 27 I.T.R. 188., where a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and sub-section (5) of section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. In a reference made under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the assessee in which the applicant-assessee remained absent, namely, Gajadhar Prasad Nathu Lal v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax(4), the Madhya Pradesh High Court arrived at the same conclusion. We according....