Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Sixth Income-Tax Officer vs Pithva Engineering Works on 3 September, 1983

Shree Saurastra Ka;Akendra Co-Op. ... vs The Adit (Cpc), Bangalore, Bangalore on 31 May, 2023

In view of the decision of the Tribunal in Sixth ITO v. Pithva Engg. Works [1983]6 ITD 413(Bom.), the provisions of section 143(1) and other provisions relevant thereto in section 143 constitute a complete code in themselves being special provisions relating to assessments made under section 143(1). These special provisions cannot be ignored by resorting to the general provisions of section 154 for the reason that the rule that the special excludes the general' is well settled. For this reason also, the AAC should not have entertained the appeals in the case of the assessee whose assessment was completed under section 143(1)."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs N. Saikrishna on 4 June, 1987

8. In the case of assessments under Section 143(1), it is not permissible for the assessees to plead for rectification under Section 154 on grounds of mistake apparent from record. This is because in the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Sixth ITO v. Pithva Engg. Works [1983] 6 ITD 413 (Bom.), the provisions of Section 143(1) and other provisions relevant thereto in Section 143 constitute a complete code in themselves being special provisions relating to assessments made under Section 143(1). These special provisions could not be ignored by resorting to the general provisions of Section 154 for the reason that the rule that 'the special excludes the general' is well settled. For this reason also, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should not have entertained the appeals in the case of the three assessees whose assessments were completed under Section 143(1).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rohitkumar C.Shah, Mehsana vs Department Of Income Tax on 17 February, 2005

"It is true that the High Court decision in CIT v. Pithwa Engg. Works [2005] 276 ITR 519] was not dealing with the new limit of the circular dated24-10-2005. It was with reference to the earlier circular where reference was not required to be filed to the High Court if the tax effect was less than Rs. 2 lakhs. The contention of the revenue in that case was that Rs. 2 lakhs limit was increased by circular dated 27-3 -2000 and prior to that, the limit was only Rs. 50,000 and the contention of the revenue was that the new limit would not be applicable to the old references. The High Court rejected the said contention of the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandrakant Chhanabhai Shah, Mehsana vs Department Of Income Tax on 17 February, 2005

"It is true that the High Court decision in CIT v. Pithwa Engg. Works [2005] 276 ITR 519] was not dealing with the new limit of the circular dated24-10-2005. It was with reference to the earlier circular where reference was not required to be filed to the High Court if the tax effect was less than Rs. 2 lakhs. The contention of the revenue in that case was that Rs. 2 lakhs limit was increased by circular dated 27-3 -2000 and prior to that, the limit was only Rs. 50,000 and the contention of the revenue was that the new limit would not be applicable to the old references. The High Court rejected the said contention of the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jasubhai Chhanabhai Shah, Mehsana vs Department Of Income Tax on 17 February, 2005

"It is true that the High Court decision in CIT v. Pithwa Engg. Works [2005] 276 ITR 519] was not dealing with the new limit of the circular dated24-10-2005. It was with reference to the earlier circular where reference was not required to be filed to the High Court if the tax effect was less than Rs. 2 lakhs. The contention of the revenue in that case was that Rs. 2 lakhs limit was increased by circular dated 27-3 -2000 and prior to that, the limit was only Rs. 50,000 and the contention of the revenue was that the new limit would not be applicable to the old references. The High Court rejected the said contention of the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nirja Guleri,, vs Assessee on 23 March, 2005

2.2 In our above view, we find support from the recent decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pithwa Engg. Works, [2005] 197 CTR (Bom) 655 : [2005] 276 ITR 519 (Bom) wherein their Lordships following their order in the case of CIT vs. Camco Colour Co. [2002] 173 CTR (Bom) 255 : [2002] 254 ITR 565 (Bom) held that "Instruction dt. 27th March, 2000 reflect the policy decision taken by the Board not to raise questions of law where the tax effect is less than the amount prescribed with a view to reduce litigations before the High courts and the Supreme Court. The said circular is binding on the Revenue. One fails to understand how the 2 ITA NOS. 2662 & 2987/DEL/2005 A.Y. 2001-02 Revenue can contend that so far as new cases are concerned, the circular issued by the Board is binding on them and in compliance with the said instructions, they do not file references if the tax effect is less than ` 2 lakhs, but the same approach is not adopted with respect to the old referred cases even if the tax effect is leas than ` 2 lakhs.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next