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

1980 Supreme(Del) 90

LEELA SETH, S.RANGANATHAN
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Appellant
Versus
MAHABIR PRASHAD AND SONS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Bishambar Lal Khanna, M.L.VARMA, S.MUKHERJEE

S. RANGANATHAN, J.

( 1 ) SOMETIMES, in income-tax matters, as in other branches of law, a considerable amount of judicial time is consumed in resolving a purely procedural wrangle. Thus under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 as well as its successor Act of 1961, question as to how far an order charging interest is appealable to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and then to the Appellate Tribunal has engaged considerable attention of the courts and an attempt at legislativc clarification has really not solve the problem. Before proceeding to set out how the difficulty arises the facts of the present reference under section 256 (1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 may be briefly stated.

( 2 ) FOR the assessment year 1962-63 the respondent assesses, M/s. Mahabir Parshad and Sons, a registered firm, had to file its return of income within the time prescribed under section 139 (1 ). i. e. , 30-6-1962. The return was not filed on that date. The asscssee applied for extension of time on 30-11-1962, 19-2-1963 and 30-9-1963. the application on the last date being for extension upto 31-10-1963. The return was, however, actually filed on 20-11-1963. While completing the assessment of the firm for 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