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

1978 Supreme(All) 381

SATISH CHANDRA, K. N. GOYAL
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – Appellant
Versus
Murlidhar Mathura Prasad – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
A. Gupta, R.K. Gaulati

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. THE assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment year 1965-66, it, on 3rd August, 1965, filed a return showing an income of Rs. 28,918. On 5th February, 1970, the ITO noticed that the said return was not accompanied by the declaration under Section 184(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and that there has been no change in the constitution of the firm or the shares of its partners. He issued a notice to the assessee calling upon it to show cause why the firm may not be assessed as an association of persons. In reply, the firm filed a fresh return showing the same amount as income, and with the said return it filed a declaration in Form No. 12 under Section 184(7) of the Act.

2. THE ITO refused renewal of registration on the ground that the firm had not been granted continuation of registration in the last two preceding years, and the declaration in Form No. 12 ought to have been filed along with the return. He assessed the firm in the status of an association of persons.

On appeal, the AAC held that the return which was filed on 6th March, 1970, was not a valid one. It could not be treated as a revised return, because it had not been filed due to discov




















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