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

1963 Supreme(Kar) 34

AHMED ALI KHAN, K.S.HEGDE
KISHANCHAND LUNIDASINGH BAJAJ – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MYSORE – Respondent


HEGDE, J.

( 1 ) BY this application the assessee requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer three questions of law which are said to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated 31st May, 1962, in I. T. A. No. 9602 of 1960-61 to the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, a question of law does arise out of the Tribunal's order we accordingly state an agreed case and refer it to the high Court under section 66 (I ).

( 2 ) THERE were three Hindu undivided families, viz. (i) the assessee family of Seth Kishandchand lunidasingh Bajaj, (ii) family of Seth Purushotham Bajaj, and (iii) family of Seth Parmanand bajaj.

( 3 ) THE Kartas of these three families entered into a partnership for carrying on business as bankers, by name Messrs. Mangoomal Lunidasingh and Sons. On May 1, 1956, this firm was dissolved and certain items of money lending assets were allotted to the respective kartas. On may 16, 1956, the assessee family started a new business in the name of Messrs. Mangoomal kishanchand in money-lending with the assets obtained on the dissolution of the firm mentioned above. In the books started on May 16, 1956, certain items of shares and securities standing in th

































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