Section 34 of the Income Tax Act

Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur vs. Murlidhar Bhagwandas, Lakhimpur Kheri

Bench: 5 Judges

N.A. Malbari and Bros vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay

Bench: 3 Judges

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hyderabad vs. Sri Rajareddy Mallaram

The appeal is allowed

Bench: 3 Judges

Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and Others vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa

Bench: The High Court, Order That The Appeal Before The High Court Should Stand With- Drawn. In The Circumstances We Pass No Order As To Costs. Appeal Allowed. Smt. Srilekha Banerjee & Others V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & Orissa (S.K. Das, A.K. Sarkar & M. Hidayatuj,La.H Jj.) [1\Col1\T Tax-Sale Of High Denominalio1' Notts-Sale Procud•, If Liable To Tax-Indian Incomeo-Ta~ Act, 1922 (11 Of 1922). The Asscssee Had Encashed 51 High Denomination Note• Of R1. 1,000/- Each Injanuary, 1946. The Assessee'• Explanation In His Application For Encashment Of The Notes Was That He '"1.'.U A Colliery Proprietor & Contractor, That For Conducting The Buainess & For Payment To Labour Which Came Tc A!,Out Rs.30,000/-To 4-0,000/- Every Week He Had To Keep Large Sums Of Money To Meet Emergency & That The Sum Of R.. 5R ,000/ - Realised By Cncashment Of The Notes Wa• Neither Profit Nor Part Of Profit But Was Floating Capit~L For.The Purpose Of.Condu.Liaj Business. The Income-Tax Officer Did Not Accept Thu Explana- Tion & Treated This Amount •• Profit From 10Me Undisclosed

Philip John Plasket Thomas vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Calcutt A

Bench: Marriay1:-L11Conie /Roni Those $Lvrre~'I Not Tu L1E Inc.Ludetl In That Of Her H11•Lm111L-11!Ea11Ing Of 1Cifc & /11,.L,A11D-H1Terpre. Tatim• Of •Latute-Lnlention Of &.Gislarure-Lncli<M Lncom E-Tax Act, [.922 (11 Of ]!122), 8S. /(J (3) (Q) (Iii), Jr,(.1) (I,), Jfj (1) (O). The Appellant Who Was Engaged To One Mrs. Knight, Transferred 750 Shares To Her On December Jo, 1947. On December Jj, 1947, The Conipany Tran~Ferrerl Those Shares In Her Name In Its Book.. On December !Fl, 1947, The Marriage Was !'O)Cmnised. The Income~Tax Officer Included The Incon1C Of Mrs. Thomas From Tho•E •Hares In The Income Of Her Husband. The Appeal Of The Assessee-Husband Was Dismi,.Ed By The Appellate A!Sistant Commi'9Ion.R Who Lielcl That The • ..

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. Janabha Muhammad Hussain Nachiar Ammal

The appeal is allowed

Bench: 5 Judges

S. C. Prashar, Income-Tax Officer, Market Ward, Bombay and Another vs. Vasantsen Dwarkadas and Others

In the result, as we have already said, we

Bench: 5 Judges

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. Robert J. Sas

Bench: 5 Judges

Income-Tax Officer & Another, Bombay vs. The Simplex Mills Ltd., Bombay

Bench: 5 Judges

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City I, Bombay vs. Amarchand N. Shroff, by His Heirs and Legal Representatives

Bench: Us. In The Result The Appeal Fails & Is Dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay City I, Bombay V. Amarchand N. Shroff, By His Heirs & Legal Representatives (]. L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah & J. C. Shah, Jj.) Income ]'Ax-Liability To Tax Of Income Of Deceased Person- S'Uch Income In Hands Of The Legal Representatives-Income Of The Previo'Us Year-Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 (11 Of 1922), S. 24.B. Sub-Section (~) Of S. 24B Of The Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922, Provided That Where A Person Dies His Heirs & Legal Representatives Ate Liable To Pay Out Of The Estate Of The Deceased The Tax Assessed As Payable By The Deceased Or Any Tax Which Would Have Been Payable Under The Act By The Deceased If He Had Not Died. A Who Was One Of The Three Partners In A Firm Of Solicitors Died On July 7, 1949 & Thereafter The Partnership Was Carried On By The Other Two Partners Till December 1, 1949, When R, Son Of A, Joined The Firm As The Third Partner. After The Death Of A The Arrangement Between The Various Partners In Regard To The Realisations Of The Old Outstandings Was Thal In Respect Of The Work Done Up To The Death Of A The Realisations Were To Be Divided Between A & The Other Two Partners. The Firm 1962 P;·Are Lal Bhargava V. State Oj Rajasthan Subbtj. Rao, J. 1962 Octohlr, 23.

The Income Tax Officer vs. Arvind N. Mafatlal

Bench: 5 Judges

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

Bench: 3 Judges

R. G. S. Naidu and Co vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Excess Profits Tax, Madras

Bench: 3 Judges

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar & Orissa vs. Maharaja Pratapsingh Bahadur of Gidhaur

Bench: 3 Judges

Nathmal Tolaram vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri and Another

Bench: 5 Judges

L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala Cantt

Bench: 5 Judges

Sardar Baldev Singh vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi & Ajmer

Bench: 5 Judges

The Bihar State Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax

Bench: 3 Judges

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. Ranchhoddas Karsondas, Bombay

Bench: 3 Judges

M/S. Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Porbandar

Bench: Us On April 2, 1959, We Had Announced Our Decis!On · That The Appeal Would Be Allowed & That The Judgment Would Be Delivered Later On In Due Eourse. It Is In Pursuance Of That Order That The Pre- Sent Judgment Has Been Delivered. Appeal Allowed. M/S. Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd. V. The Income-Tax Officer, Porbandar (B. P. Sinha, J. L. Kapur & M. Hrnayatullah, Jj.) Income Tax-Depreciation-Written Down V Alue-C Amputa- Tion For Prior Years-Whether Binding For Succeeding Years-Fresh Calculation For Written Down Value By Income-Tax Officer-Notice To Assessee-When Essential-Indian Income-Tax Act, R922 (Xi Of R922), Ss. Ro(Z)(Vi), 35(R), 63, Sub-Section (R) Of S. 35 Of The Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922, Provided: " .................. The Income-Tax Officer May ...... On His Own Motion Rectify Any Mistake Apparent From The Record ...... & Shall ...... Rectify Any Such Mistake Which Has Been Brought To His Notice By An Assessee: Provided That No Such Rectificatioa Shall Be Made, Having The Effect Of Enhancing Or Reducing A I959 April I4.