Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1966 (11) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... umstances of the case, the business carried on by the assessee at the time when the claim under section 25(4) was made was the 'same business' on which tax under the Act of 1918 was paid and whether relief under section 25(4) was or was not allowable ? " There was a Hindu undivided family styled Nihal Chand Kishori Lal. It was dealing in various kinds of grains and oil seeds. That business of the Hindu undivided family was charged to tax under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918. Later on, the Hindu undivided family business was taken over by a registered firm consisting of the members of the Hindu undivided family as its partners. It is this firm which is the assessee in the present case. The newly constituted firm continue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 29, 1950. As all the businesses after that date (March 29, 1950) were taken over by a company, the assessee claimed relief under section 25(4) of the Act, in respect of the above businesses in the assessment for the year 1951-52. The Income-tax Officer allowed the assessee's claim, inasmuch as, in his opinion, the claim was admissible, by his order dated 21st March, 1955. The Commissioner, on a perusal of the records of the case, was of the opinion that the said order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue and he, therefore, sought to revise it in the exercise of his revisional powers under section 33B of the Act. After due notice to the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax held that the business of oil mi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... attempted to do, that the provisions of section 25(4) did not require that the business on which tax was charged under the Act of 1918 should be the same business which was being succeeded to. The question is explicit and not couched widely and, therefore, it is not even open to Mr. Jagdish Swarup to contend that the question that he now wishes to raise is only a different facet of the question which has been referred to this court. In substance, therefore, on the question as referred, the only point which falls to be considered is whether dealing in oil seeds is the same business as the manufacture of oil. There cannot be any serious doubt that the two activities are quite separate and have nothing common between them except oil seeds. Wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates