4,50,000/ companytinued to be shown in the balance sheet as provision for taxation as on 1st April, 1963.
It too was rejected on 18.1.1962 against which a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred.
The Income tax Officer did number agree with the several claims made in the return.
67,001/ .
This appeal too was rejected against which the assessee moved the High Court of East Punjab by an application dated 21.6.1958.
By its order dated 1st July, 1971 the Tribunal allowed the appeal allowing several claims of the assesse.
Meanwhile, the Income Tax Officer passed an order under Section 23A of 23.7.1963 levying additional tax.
4,72,534/ and the net tax payable at Rs.
By his order dated 15.4.1957, the Commissioner rejected the assessees application dated 18.8.1956 against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Board of Referees.
An appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Super Profit Tax A Range, Ahmedabad.
It is against the said order that the assessee as well the revenue both applied for referring certain questions of law for the opinion of the High Court.
Subsequently, however, the Letters Patent appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed on 24.5.1965 with the result that the order of the Income Tax Officer stood vacated but that is a subsequent circumstance which we cannot take numbere of in proceedings for the year relating to assessment year 1964 65 .
For, the assessment year 1964 65, the assessee filed a return under the Act for the period ending 31.3.1964 disclosing its chargeable profits at Rs.
1,86,338.44p.
The assessee then carried the matter to Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
Ahmedabad which was subsequently renamed as Shahibaug Enterpreneures Private Limited, Ahmedabad.
He determined the chargeable profits at Rs.
The assessee is a Private Limited Company known as Karamchand Premchand Private Limited.
P. Jeevan Reddy, J. These two appeals one by the Assessee Civil Appeal No.
