Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

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 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1985 (1) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inding of the Income-tax Officer was in confirmity with the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 on identical issues even though not accepted by the Department and which decision was available to the Income-tax Officer before he completed the assessment ? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was right, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in holding that only 1/7th of the share income from M/s. Southern Mercantile Corporation was includible in the hands of the assessee ? The assessee was a partner in a firm called Southern Mercantile Corporation. For the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, the assessee claimed that she is liable only in relatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....age when the judgment of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 held the field, the revisional proceedings cannot be sustained and in that view it set aside the revisional order of the Commissioner and sustained the order of the Income-tax Officer holding that only 1/7th share income of the firm should be included in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal with reference to the assessment year 1973-74, the above two questions have been referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue. So far as the first question is concerned, it is seen that the Tribunal was of the view that the Commissioner was in error in proceeding on the basis that the order of the Income-tax Officer holding that onl....