TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lies in a very narrow campus. The petitioner and his grandmother Bhawari Kaur Chordia were co-owners of an immovable property at Door No.6 and 7, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai. The property was sold, pursuant to an agreement dated 02.01.1980 and possession was handed over and the sale consideration for the property was to be received in instalments. For the unpaid balance of the sale proceeds, the co-owners were entitled to receive interest and for such interest for the period 1980-81 and 1981-82, Rs. 3.75lakhs each i.e., for the petitioner and his grandmother. 2. The co-owners namely, the petitioner and his grandmother had shown Rs. 3.75lakhs as income from property and also claimed permissible deduction in respect of that claim. In the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve as a bar to the amount of real income being taxed under the proper head. The powers of the Commissioner extend to requiring the assessing officer to determine the true income under the proper head and bring proper amounts assessable to tax, to tax. 10. The amount that could be taxed was required to be taxed under the proper head, having regard to the nature of the income. The amounts which could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee, having regard to the admitted factual and legal position, could not have been taxed in the hands of the assessee. 11. As the computation of income of the assessee for those years is required to be redone on the basis of this order, we remand the matter to the Income Tax officer to redo the assessment i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent has rejected the same by the impugned order dated 31.03.2003. 7. I have heard Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and carefully perused the materials available on record. 8. The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act has been rejected on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the petitioner's case is that he was subjected to double taxation, for the simple reason that he had filed declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme of 1986 and offered additional income. Secondly, it is stated that the petition is grossly delayed and the power of the Commissioner cannot be stretched to do s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax cases filed by the Department, which were disposed of by judgment dated 21.02.2001, issuing a specific direction to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment, based on the observations/ directions contained in the judgment. 11. Thus, when the petitioner's assessment was completed on 31.03.1981 based on the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the petitioner's grandmother's case, the respondents themselves should have revised the petitioner's assessment in tune with the said order. Having not done so, the Department cannot reject the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act. Thus, for all the practical purposes, the limitation in filing the petition had to be reckoned only after the judgment in th....