Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1970 (9) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee is a registered firm. Its main business is of forest contracts. The assessment year was 1957-58; the accounting period was from October 26, 1955, to October 13, 1956. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the return submitted by the assessee. He made an addition of Rs. 1,23,000. This addition included a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 intro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on, and held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not competent to give a finding that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was assessable in the year 1956-57. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., the Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law to this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal correctly held....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r under appeal. In the present case the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dealing with the propriety of the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58. He found that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 did not relate to that year. That finding was sufficient to dispose of the item of Rs. 1,00,000. He could not record a definite finding that this very item represented income of the assessee from an undis....