SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Kar) 270

S.A.HAKEEM, K.J.SHETTY
ARUNACHALAM C. – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Respondent


Advocates:
G.Sarangan, K.R.Prasad, K.SRINIVASAN INDRAJEETH SHAH, S.P.BHAT

( 1 ) THE questions referred in these I. T,r. Cs. relate to the scope of Section 64 (1) (i) and (ii) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (called shortly the Act ). I. T. R. Cs. Nos. 89 and 90 of 1976 are at the instance of the assessee. I. T. R. C, no. 85 of 1978 is at the instance of the revenue.

( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are these : i. T. R. Cs. Nos. 89 and 90/1976 : sri C. Arunachalam - the assessee was a partner in the firm of M/s Sunrise industries Syndicate representing his huf. His wife was also a partner in that firm. Sri C. Arunachalam was also a partner in that capacity in another firm called M/s. Sunrise Industries. There his minor children had been admitted to the benefits of tha partnership. For the assessment year 1971-72, Sri C. Arunachalam as an individual filed his return of income made of property income and refund of annuity deposit. The I. T. O. completed the assessment determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 12,368/- made up of property income of Rs. 10,643/- and refund of annuity deposit (other sources) of Rs. 1. 725/- in the status of an individual. For the assessment year 1972-73. I. T. O. made similar assessment accepting the return of the assessee. In both the



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top