and was refundable to the claimant as a result of adjudication of the dispute or otherwise. It is only in the amended provision that additional stipulation is provided as per which the claimant is required to file, along with application for refund, such documentary or other evidence including documents referred to any Section 12A of the Act to establish that the amount of duty of excise was collected from the claimant or paid by the claimant and that incidence of such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person.
13 (1) of the Finance Act, 1950, operate equally with regard to the saving provisions under present consideration. you can try these out provisions are expressed in identical terms, and the question is if they save s. 34 of the Income _tax Act contemplates different cases in which the power to assess escaped income has been given; where there has been no assessment at all, the, term ” assessment ” may be appropriate and where there was assessment at too low a rate or with (1) A.
It was held by this Court that reading r. On behalf of the assessee our attention has been drawn to the words “in respect of the total income chargeable to income-tax. defect or irregularity in affecting the merits of the case “. Income- tax Officer, Rajnandgaon and another (1), that s. We are unable to accept this argument. 2 to 24 are set aside and the claim for compensation which was argued before us is disallowed. 34 of the Read Full Report here – Suggested Site – Indian Income-tax Act with regard to re- assessment proceedings.
In such a case, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise was to only examine as to whether excise duty was paid in excess etc. It is worthy of note that the saving provisions say that the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as in force in the retroceded area prior to July 1, 1948, shall apply in respect of the total income chargeable to income tax prior to that date and see it here shall apply to proceedings relating to the assessment of Such income, until the stage of assessment and determination of income-tax payable thereon.
It clearly follows from the above that before the amendment of Section 11B of the Act, principle of unjust enrichment was not incorporated under the unamended provision. ‘Total income’ means the total amount of income, profits and gains computed in the manner laid down in Suggested Web site – click the following webpage – the Act, and there are no good reasons why the word ‘assessment’ occurring in the saving provisions should be restricted in the manner suggested so as to exclude proceedings for assessment of escaped income or under-assessed income.
, to take care of the mischief that was prevailing under the unamended provision which was removed by making amendment, popularly known as Heydon’s Mischief Rule. 23 of the said Act according to which ” Anything done or any proceedings taken under this Act shall not be questioned on account of any. The reasons which led us to give a comprehensive meaning to the word ” assessment ” in s. 34(1)(b) of the Act includes information as to just click the up coming site true and correct state of the law and so would cover information as to relevant judicial decisions; and, (2) that the expression “has escaped assessment” in to cases where no return has been submitted by the assessee.
In its normal sense, I to assess’ means ‘to fix the amount of tax or to determine such amount’. but which has not been assessed until that date ” occurring in the saving provisions and the argument is that, those words show that there was no intention to permit reopening of assessments which had been made already. The appeal is therefore allowed and the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal as to all the workmen and the award of the Industrial Tribunal as to workmen Nos.
The process of re-assessment is to the same purpose and is included in the connotation of the term ” assessment “. 88 and 90 of the Trusts Act. We think that they do. As the workmen have been dismissed and no compensation has been allowed the proper order as to costs is that both parties do pay their costs of this appeal. It is significant that the decision of this Court rested principally on the provisions of s. Therefore, under the old provision, the only obligation of Going to simranlaw.com – click the following webpage – the person claiming refund was to make such an application before the expiry of six months from the relevant date and to show how the refund was admissible to the applicant.
In the instant case, the facts that. Held, (1) that the word ” information ” in s. It appears that the contention urged on behalf of the appellants would be more in consonance with business idea,-, because no business man would think of immediately forking out a large sum of money on the next ensuing settlement day. We agree with the view expressed in Hirjibhai Tribhuvandas v. In fact that was precisely the reason for amending the provision so that this doctrine of unjust enrichment is incorporated, viz.
the parties deliberately chose to fix the term of the partnership as conterminous with the term of the lease and licence ending with the year 1942; that they did not, in express terms, or by necessary implication, make any provision for extending the period of the partnership or for obtaining renewal of the lease and the necessary licence; 91 the rules laid down in the Indian Trusts Act, particularly, ss. 797 A to Mysore Act LVII of 1948.
and Berar Municipalities Act 11 of 1922.