Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Sait Bansilal And Rangisetti Veeranna vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 January, 1970

Hari Mohan Sharma, Delhi vs Acit, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi on 31 January, 2019

Hence, enhancement u/s 251 (1) (a) of the act is prohibited on the issues which have not at all been considered by the AO during assessment proceedings. This gives the common understanding that the ld CIT (A) cannot enhance income of the assessee on altogether ‗new Source'. Therefore it is clear that Therefore, the CIT(A) is not competent to enhance Page | 30 the assessment taking an income which income was not considered expressly or by necessary implication by the Assessing Officer at all. Such is the mandate of the decisions of various high courts such as in CIT vs. National Company Ltd. (1993) 199 ITR 445 (Cal), Sait Bansilal and Raggisetti Veeranna vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 750 (AP), Sterling Construction & Trading Co. vs. ITO (1975) 99 ITR 236 (Kar) and Lokenath Tolaram vs. CIT (1986) 50 CTR (Bom) 237 : (1986) 161 ITR 82 (Bom). Hence issue no 1 I enlisted in para no 13 of the order is decided in favour of the assessee. In view of our decision on issue no (i), issue no (ii) does not survive and issue no (iii) is dealt with separately. In view of this we allow ground no 1,2,3,14,15 and 16 of the appeal of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 37 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M/S Ginni Goldlimited, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 15 April, 2021

Hence, enhancement u/s 251 (1) (a) of the act is prohibited on the issues which have not at all been considered by the AO during assessment proceedings. This gives the common understanding that the ld CIT (A) cannot enhance income of the assessee on altogether 'new Source'. Therefore it is clear that Therefore, the CIT(A) is not competent to enhance the assessment taking an income which income was not considered expressly or by necessary implication by the Assessing Officer at all. Such is the mandate of the decisions of various high courts such as in CIT vs. National Company Ltd. (1993) 199 ITR 445 (Cal), Sait Bansilal and Raggisetti Veeranna vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 750 (AP), Sterling Construction & Trading Co. vs. ITO (1975) 99 ITR 236 (Kar) and Lokenath Tolaram vs. CIT (1986) 50 CTR (Bom) 237 : (1986) 161 ITR 82 (Bom). Hence issue no 1 I enlisted in para no 13 of the order is decided in favour of the assessee. In view of our decision on issue no (i), issue no (ii) does not survive and issue no (iii) is dealt with separately. In view of this we allow ground no 1,2,3,14,15 and 16 of the appeal of the assessee."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

West Bengal State Electricity Board vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... on 2 March, 2005

6.4 However, Mr. Agarwal sought to rely upon the decision in Sait Bansilal & Rangisetti Veeranna v. CIT to contend that unless the statute contains words, whether expressly or by necessary implication, ousting the jurisdiction of the ITO once vested in him, the jurisdiction cannot be taken away. Nothing but express words in the section can take away the jurisdiction of an officer. That a presumption exists in law in favour of the continuance of jurisdiction or power once vested in an officer until ousted by express words. The ratio decided in this decision is not in dispute. By reason of creation of new range, the jurisdiction is conferred on the newly created wards, which implies that this jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the officer in whom such jurisdiction remains vested. It ceases from the date when the new range came into effect, namely, 8th May, 1989, but it cannot have retrospective effect of taking away the jurisdiction vested in the ITO pursuant to which a proceeding was already initiated and pending in the absence of any provision of transmission or transfer of such proceeding to the newly created range. In the present case, however, this is no more germane, since all the proceedings, except the proceedings in respect of the asst. yr. 1985-86, were initiated after 8th May, 1989. Therefore, this decision does not help Mr. Agarwal in his submission.
Calcutta High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 23 - D K Seth - Full Document

Suwalka And Suwalka Properties And ... vs Acit, Central Cirlce, Kota, Kota, ... on 3 October, 2024

Such is the mandate of the decisions of various high courts such as in CIT v. National Co. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 445 (Cal), Sait Bansilal and Rangisetti Veeranna v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 750 (AP), Sterling Construction & Trading Co. v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 236 (Kar) and LokenathTolaram v. CIT [1986] 24 Taxman 486/161 ITR 82 (Bom). Hence issue no 11 enlisted in para no 13 of the order is decided in favour of the assessee. In view of our decision on issue no
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 88 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Msn Laboratories Private ... vs Addl Cit, Central Range-2, Hyderabad on 25 February, 2026

26. We further note that, the admission of the assessee does not Ipso Facto lead to levy of penalty, even though the assessee has made a statement regarding receipt of amount from the sale of spent solvents and scrap. Further, mere confessional statement without there being any documentary evidence in proof of such breakup of transactions cannot be solely relied upon while considering the penalty proceedings. Such evidence by way of statement might be considered for making the assessment but however for consideration of the penalty proceedings being independent in nature, further additional evidences are required to brought on to the file as corroborative in nature. More over the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are different all together and the evidences that were relied upon during the assessment proceedings may not be considered as sole factor and sufficient evidences for levy of penalty. This legal principle is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sait Bansilal & Rangisetti Veeranna Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - [1972] 83 ITR 750 (AP), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that "Tax and Penalty, like tax and penal interest, are distinct and different concepts under the Act. Penalty is in addition to the tax determined as payable by the assessee. Penalty cannot be taken as additional tax for all purposes. The penalty and assessment proceedings are not one and the same proceedings. The findings given in the assessment proceedings would only be relevant and Page 31 of 33 ITA Nos 2164 2165 2171 and 2172 MSN Laboratories P Ltd admissible but not final and conclusive in penalty proceedings. In penalty proceedings, further evidence can be led to rebut the findings given in the assessment proceedings." According to the said case law, it can be understood that in order to levy of penalty, the Assessing Officer has to gather the evidence from the seized material. But in fact, the seized material is wholly non-speaking and dumb with regard to the transaction-wise and buyer-wise details of the sales of spent solvents embedded in the date-wise sales recorded in segment-1. There is no material whatsoever to reach any conclusion regarding contravention of the provisions of clause (b) of section 269ST. Consequently, the penalty U/s 271D cannot be levied.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1