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

1971 Supreme(Del) 336

HARDAYAL HARDY, V.S.DESHPANDE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Appellant
Versus
BALKISHANN BHATIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.C.Sharma, K.R.BAJAJ, P.N.Mongia, R.N.MEHRA, RANDHIR CHAWLA, V.Kumar

Hardayal Hardy, C. J. (oral)

( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of 13 Income-tax references, viz I. T. R. Nos. 1,4 to 10 and 16 to 20 of 1968 in which a common question of law has been raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the new Act ). The applicant is the Commissioner of Income Tax while the respondent who will hereafter be REFERRED TO to as the assessee is a partner in as many as 15-16 firms. Two of these firms carry on business at Delhi while the other firms carry on business outside Delhi on various places such as Amritsar, Kanpur, Kashgargh, Bombay, Nagpur and Calcutta and other places. The various references relate to different out of station firms.

( 2 ) ORIGINALLY the Commissioner had applied to the Tribunal to refer lo the High Court two questions of law arising out of the Tribunal s order dated 20. 3. 1965 in I. T. R. No. 3253 of 1964-65. The questions read as follows:-

(1) "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer s order of rectification under Section 154/155 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, in so far as it imp















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