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

1991 (3) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-Under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following two questions for the opinion of this court: "(1) Whether, in view of the Explanation added to section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696, still hold the field? (2) W....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) was rendered with reference to section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This case is binding upon us in so far as it interprets the provisions of section 28(1)(c) of the 1922 Act. Since Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) does not deal with the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), it cannot be treated as binding law in a case arising under the 1961 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplies. The ratio of Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) would not apply proprio vigore. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has not expressly held that Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) holds the field even after the introduction of the Explanation, we think it unnecessary to answer question No. 1. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, while it is true that the approach of the Tri....