9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1928 (8) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court from the Commissioner of income-tax under the provisions of S. 66, Act 11 of 1922. We are asked to answer the following four questions: (i) In the circumstances stated, were the sums of ₹ 10,968 and ₹ 5,621, income, to which the Income-tax Act applies, within the meaning of S. 4, Income Tax Act, 1922 (ii) Did the income received in 1925-26, which had escaped assessment to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain property. Indar Prasad considered that the decree gave Jagmohan Das more than he was entitled to and he appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. The Judicial Commissioner's Court dismissed his appeal on 10th March 1924. Indar Prasad was not satisfied. He applied for leave to appeal to their Lordships of the Judicial Committee. That leave was granted him. The fact that the leav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax Act applies within the meaning of S. 4. The position was this. If Indar Prasad had at once complied with the terms of the decree Jagmohan Das would have obtained this property. From this property he could have obtained an income. Owing to Indar Prasad taking the case to their Lordships of the Judicial Committee the enjoyment of Jagmohan Das over the property was postponed; but in lieu of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In these circumstances the exception does not apply and they are assessable to income-tax. 4. We, therefore, answer the first question in the affirmative. In respect to the second question we find that the income received in 1925-26 which had escaped assessment to income-tax came within the scope of S. 34 of the Act. We, therefore, answer the second question in the affirmative. The third questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
