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

1963 Supreme(Kar) 26

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


K. S. HEGDE, J.

( 1 ) BY these applications under section 66 (1), the assessee requires the Tribunal to draw up a statement and to refer certain questions of law which are said to arise out of the said order. In our opinion, a question of law arises out of the aforesaid Tribunal's order, we draw up a statement of the case, agreed to by both the parties, and refer it to the High Court. As the facts are common a consolidated statement of the case is drawn.

( 2 ) THE assessee started a film distribution business under the name and style of M/s. Zenith movies on October 27, 1951. Books of account in respect of the above business were closed on 31st October of every year.

( 3 ) IN the belief that the assessee would have earned a taxable income in respect of the assessment years 1953-54, 11954-55 and 1955-56, proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax Officer under section 34 in respect of these years by issue of notice dated May 30, 1957, and served on june 3, 1957. These notices were accompanied by forms of return.

( 4 ) IN the returns made in response to the notices, the assessee claimed losses of Rs. 17,266, Rs. 36,012 and Rs. 43,702 for the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55 an































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