Section 66 of the Income Tax Act

R.K. Deo vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Orissa

Accordingly, fail and are dismissed with costs

Bench: Court-Effect Of. The Appellant-Assessee, In Bis Wealth-Tax Assessments, Claimed R-- Deduction Towards Tax Liability Which Arose On Account Of Bis Income From Forest Brought To Tax & Upheld By This Court. The Wealth-Tax Officer D • Disallowed The Claims As The Tax Payable Remained Outstanding For More Than Twelve Months. On The Valuation Date. On Appeal, The Appellate Assis- Tant Commissioner Held That The Assessee Was Entitled To Claim The Said Deduction In View Of The Fact That The Liability Was Created By The Judgment Of The Court & Discharged Subsequently. However, On Appeal The E Tribunal Set Aside The Order Or The Appellate Authority. The High Court Affirmed The Finding Or The Tribunal. ~ The Assessee Has Preferred The Present Appeals Against The High Court'S Orders. I It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That His Liability Crystal- F ;.__ Lised On The Last Day Of The Previous Year & It Became A Debt Or Might Have Become A Debt With The Passing Of The Order By This Court In 1958, " But Since It Was Quantified Only Iq October, 1964 When A Fresh Demand Notice Was Issued, The Period Of 12 Months Was Liable To Be Counted From That Date. G Dismissing The Appeals, This <;Ourt, ---< Held 1. The High Court Was Right In Holding That The Amotult Of Rs. 6,69,766 Was Not Admissible As Deduction While Computing The Net Wealth Or The Appellant Under The Wealth Tax Act For The Assessment Yeats H 203

Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. & Anr vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High

Bench: 2 Judges

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Bansi Dhar & Sons

Bench: 2 Judges

C. I. T. Central Bombay vs. Jalan Trading Co. (P) Ltd

Bench: 3 Judges

Azamjahi Mills Ltd. Hyderabad vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

Bench: 2 Judges

C. I. T. Andhra Pradesh vs. M/S. Vadde Pallaiah & Co

Bench: 3 Judges

Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta

Bench: 3 Judges

C.I.T. (Central) Calcutta vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

Bench: 2 Judges

Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Incometax, West Bengal

Bench: 3 Judges

Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), New Delhi vs. M/S. S. Zoraster & Company

Is that the above appeals have become unsustainable, as they

Bench: 2 Judges

Karnani Properties Ltd vs. Commissioner Qf Income Tax, West Bengal

In the result these appeals succeed, the answer given by the

Bench: 2 Judges

Bengal Enamel Works Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal

Bench: 2 Judges

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar & Orissa, Patna vs. M/S. Kirkend Coal Company

Bench: 2 Judges

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, Madurai

Bench: 3 Judges

Daffadar Bhagat Singh & Sons vs. The Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward, Ferozepore

Bench: 2 Judges

Commissioner of Income-Tax Bombay City & Suburban District, Bombay vs. Hukamchand Mills Ltd. Indore

The appeals are allowed and question No

Bench: 3 Judges

Sundaram & Company (P, ) Ltd. Madurai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras

Bench: 2 Judges

Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta & Anr vs. Anil Kumar Roy Chowdhury & Anr

In the result we set aside the judgment of the High Court and

Bench: 3 Judges

Commissioner 01'' Income-Tax, West Bengal, Calcuita vs. Juggilal Kamalapat

Bench: 3 Judges

Shri Chatrasinghji Kesari Singhji Thakore vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay

Bench: 3 Judges