Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 10 June, 1993

Valueline Securities (I) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner on 22 May, 2006

(13) Even in respect of the decisions of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Courtin the case of Birla Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1994) 209 ITR 434, and Special Bench of the ITAT, Lucknow, in the case of Nawal Kishore & Sons Jewellers v. Dy. CIT (2003) 87 ITD 407, the proposition is that theassessee, having participated in the assessment proceedings, cannotmention that he has not understood the notice. That is not the case of theassessee. The case of the assessee is that the assessing officer issued notice under Section 158BC, which was rightly understood to be so by theappellant. But, the assessment has to be completed within the timementioned under Section 158BE(1), and the assessment was not completed within the said time and, therefore, the assessment got barred bylimitation. If the statutory provision mentions clearly that an assessment has to be completed within the period specified therein, the assessing officer cannot extend such time-limit, though the assessment was made in substance and effect, in conformity with the provisions of the law. The learned Counsel thus contended that all the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative have to be rejected and the claim of the appellant that the assessment was barred by limitation be uphelearned
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 91 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jt. Cit vs Groz Backert Asia Ltd. on 28 August, 2002

In this connection, reference is invited to the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Modi Spg. & Wvg. Mills (supra) wherein it has been laid down that duty of the assessee to disclose fully and truly primary and relevant facts would depend on the nature of information that the assessee is enjoined upon by the statute to furnish at the time of filing of return or when is asked by the assessing officer. The assessee has no obligation to disclose or provide information on the points neither required by statute nor prescribed by the Form of return, nor required by the assessing officer in the course of assessment proceedings.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 58 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Shree Shyam Kamal Industries (P) Ltd. vs Ito, Coy. Ward 8(3) on 29 June, 2005

9. The learned counsel argued that there was no force in the allegation that the assessee had withheld any information relating to any dispute going on with tenant. There was no column in the return of income where the assessee could state that there was dispute with the tenant. He relied upon the judgment in Modi Spg. & Wvg. Mills' case (supra) in that respect. Even otherwise under law the obligation of the assessee was only to state primary facts and the assessee was not required to enumerate each and every minute detail. The learned counsel argued that it was settled legal position that proceedings under section 147 cannot be initiated on change of opinion by the subsequent assessing officer.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Pitambardas Dulichand And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 November, 1997

In Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. v. ITO, [1993] 203 ITR 84 (Guj), that was a case of the Gujarat High Court where the petitioner had complied with the notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, there was no question of applying the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Act, the order levying interest under Section 220(2) was liable to be quashed, in Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg, Mills Ltd. v. ITO, [1995] 211 ITR 610 (Cal), it was held that notice of demand based on the original assessment was passed in September 1979, and the appeals against assessments, income and tax determined afresh were preferred in May, 1986, and the interest was not payable under Section 220(2) from the order of the original assessment order dated May, 1986. That case is not applicable in the present case as the demand was re-determined. But in a case where the original assessment was upheld by the Tribunal then the interest will accrue from the date of the original order.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Suraj Woollen Mills vs Collector Of Customs Bombay on 15 July, 1998

10. The Division Bench decision in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta has been followed by another Division Bench in Birla Cotton & Spg Mills Ltd Vs. CIT Rajasthan (1980) 123 ITR 354. The assessee carried on business in Jaipur. It had its registered office in Delhi. The assessment orders were passed by ITO at Jaipur and appeals were disposed by the C at Jaipur. The matter came up before the Tribunal at Delhi and was heard by the Central Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as there was no Tribunal at Jaipur. The Division Bench held that the court to which reference should be made would be the court having jurisdiction over the territory in which the office of the ITO was situated.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 10 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Super Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 8 June, 1998

In Birla Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1995] 211 ITR 610, the learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court has held that the liability to pay interest would arise under Section 220(2) only in cases where the amount specified in the notice of demand is not paid within the period specified under Sub-section (1) of Section 220. The learned judge has also held that the amount specified in the notice of demand is either already paid or no longer payable or subsisting, no liability to pay interest under Section 220(2) can arise. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the impugned order therein seeks to rectify the mistake. The abovesaid conclusion of the learned judge is only a passing observation ; hence, the same is also not much helpful to the petitioner's case.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Late Misrilal Jain on 7 November, 2012

7. Learned counsel, Sri Binod Poddar, Sr. Counsel, submitted that  admittedly a notice under section 156 was, in fact, issued and served  upon the assessee only after appellate order dated 24th March, 1992,  because of the reason that by final order dated 24 th March, 1992, the  assessee's liability crystallized and before that, assessee's liability had  not attained finality and crystallized in quantified form. Therefore, in  case of self­assessment, one can assess his income and submit the  returns accordingly along with the proof of payment of tax and if  there is delay, with proof of payment of interest. It is submitted that  in the case   of self­assessment by the assessee but   crystallizing tax  liability   of   the   assessee   by   final   order,   the   interest   can   be   levied  5 under section 220(2) of the Act of 1961 only after service of demand  notice demanding specified amount, which the assessee is required  to pay within the stipulated period of 30 days and in default thereof,  he   is   liable   to   pay   the   interest.   It   is   further   submitted   that   the  appellate authority and the Tribunal rightly held that the assessee is  liable   to   pay   interest   from   the   date   of   final   order   passed   by   the  appellate   authority   on   24th  March,   1992.   Learned   counsel   for   the  respondent relied upon judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay  High Court delivered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax­ 1,   Mumbai   Vs.   Chika   Overseas   (P)   Ltd.  reported   in  [2012]   23   taxmann.com 315 (Bombay) and upon judgment of Calcutta High  Court delivered in the  case of  Birla Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills   Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in [1995] 211 ITR 610 (CAL).
Jharkhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P C Tatia - Full Document

M/S. Ambica Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 May, 2007

"10. The Division Bench decision in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta has been followed by another Division Bench in Birla Cotton & Spg Mills Ltd Vs. CIT Rajasthan (1980) 123 ITR 354. The assessee carried on business in Jaipur. It had its registered office in Delhi. The assessment orders were passed by ITO at Jaipur and appeals were disposed by the C at Jaipur. The matter came up before the Tribunal at Delhi and was heard by the Central Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as there was no Tribunal at Jaipur. The Division Bench held that the court to which reference should be made would be the court having jurisdiction over the territory in which the office of the ITO was situated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 111 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next