1981 (9) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rious bus owners and taxi owners to form companies to run their business collectively. The petitioner-company came into being pursuant to these Government instructions. Smt. Durga Devi, wife of late Lal Krishan Chand Sehgal, Kalka, had four permits of taxis. She joined the petitioner-company and was allotted 200 shares. Later on, she was able to procure one more permit because of which the shares standing in her name were increased to 250. For many years, the petitioner-company was not able to pay any dividend to its shareholders. The said Smt. Durga Devi started pressing for repayment of her share capital. That request could not be granted by the company till it was able to reduce its capital or the controlling shareholders were able to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....said notice, an addition of Rs. 5,000 was made in each year towards the yearly income of the company. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the AAC. The company went up in further appeals for the years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1966-67, before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and also filed petitions under s. 264 of the Act before the Commissioner. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeals of the petitioner-company and remanded the cases for fresh decision. The AAC again dismissed the appeals primarily on the ground that even though the income from the bus was being appropriated by Smt. Durga Devi, the bus and the permit were in the name of the company, who could file a suit for claiming the income of the bus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntention of the assessee was originally accepted by the Income-tax Officer when he passed the original assessment but assessed the income of this bus in the hands of the company in reassessment proceedings. The assessee has been contending all the time that the bus belongs to the lady and the lady has been affirming so. We see no reason why such small matters should be put to rest. Looking at the matter from this angle, we see no reason to sustain the addition, which is deleted. " It was argued by the learned counsel that these orders had become final and it is not open to the Revenue to take up a contrary position. On this basis, it was submitted that the Commissioner should have accorded due weight to the arrangement arrived at between....