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

1963 Supreme(Cal) 34

DURGADAS BASU
Gopal Chandra Sen – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Samarendra Nath Dutta, Balai Lal Pal

JUDGMENT

1. In this application under Art. 226 the petitioner has obtained a rule for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the AAC and the CIT (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) dt. 5th June, 1957, and 3rd Feb., 1960, respectively. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Karta of a HUF, constituted by the heirs of one Manmatha Nath Sen and as such is liable to pay income-tax in respect of the income of the deceased Manmatha Nath to the extent of the estate inherited by the family from him. Manmatha Nath happened to be a partner of an unregistered firm called M/s Sen Bros. and Co. carrying on business at 15, College Square. The ITO (respondent No. 1) in assessing the income of Manmatha Nath for the asst. yrs. 1950-56 added to his personal income from house property, his 1/3 share of the income from the business of the said firm and charged tax accordingly. Since the business of the firm was in the hands of receivers, it was the receivers who were chargeable with the tax. The 1/3 share of the income of the firm could not be added to the personal income of Manmatha Nath, for the purposes of assessment, unless the business was assessed as an unregistered firm. The impugned order be







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