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

1957 Supreme(Cal) 151

SINHA
SUSHIL CHANDRA GHOSE – Appellant
Versus
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DISTRICT V. – Respondent


SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THESE are three applications arising from a common set of facts. There are also two contempt applications arising therefrom. They have been heard together and it will be convenient to dispose of all the five applications by one judgment.

( 2 ) THE facts in these cases are briefly as follows: the petitioner's assessment for the year 1945-46 was completed on 18tn August, 1945. With regard to the assessment which had been made, he has paid the amount which I am told is Rs. 10,107-7-0. Under Section 2 (11) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the 'act'), the words "previous year" have been defined. The relevant part of the definition is as follows : '' (11 ). 'previous year' means. (i) in respect of any separate source of income, proats and gains, (a) the twelve months ending on 31st day of March next preceding the year for which the assessment is to be made, or, if the accounts of the assessee have been made up to a dute within the said twelve months in respect of an order ending on any date other than the said 31st day of March, then, at the option of the assessee, the year ending on the date to which his accounts have been made up. "

( 3 ) IN respect of the as








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