Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.96 seconds)
Documents citing J.M. Bhatia, Appellate Assistant ... vs J.M. Shah on 19 September, 1985

Acit vs Shakti Builders on 27 December, 2004

4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has strongly opposed the aforesaid contention of ld. AR by contending that it is the usual practice of legislature to put coma after mentioning the year and therefore such coma cannot be construed in the manner suggested by the ld. A.R. He fully relied on the Explanatory notes issued by the Board where coma has not been used. According to him, it clarifies the legislative intent and consequently, the proviso can be applied only when assessment made on or before 30.9.2004 has become final and cannot be applied to pending matters. Reliance was also placed on Supreme Court judgments in the case of J.M. Bhatia A.A.C. v. J.M. Shah 156 ITR 474 and in the case of M.K. Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. 34 ITR 143. It was further pleaded that if the contention of assessee's counsel is accepted then very object of retrospective operation would be defeated.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sumer Corporation, Mumbai vs Dcit Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai on 26 December, 2018

In this regard, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.M.Bhatia vs. J.M.Shah (1985)(156 ITR 474). The Ld A.R submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the order, which is not appealed against, does not attain finality in the literal sense, since it is always liable to be modified u/s 35 of the Act (similar to sec. 154 of the 1961 Act). We have gone through the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 71 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sardar Harbans Singh vs Assistant Controller Of Estate Duty on 27 June, 1990

He further relying in J.M. Bhatia, AAC v. J.M. Shah [1985] 156 ITR 474 (SC) and CIT v. R.M. & Co. [1984] 148 ITR 353 (AP) urged that an order which is inconsistent with the provision of the subsequent amendment of law with retrospective effect, must be deemed to suffer from a mistake apparent from the record and is liable to be rectified. He further relied on the commentary on Constitution by H.M. Seervai, second edition.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mysore Cements Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 15 November, 1993

In J.M. Bhatia, AAC vs. J.M. Shah , the Supreme Court was concerned with a case under the WT Act. The order for the asst. yr. 1969-70 was passed by AAC on 26th June, 1970, whereby the jewellery and ornaments had been excluded from computation of total wealth, under s. 5(1)(viii), the said section was amended by Finance Act No. 2 of 1971, with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1963, by adding the words "but not including jewellery". In view of it, rectification proceedings were initiated in January, 1972, well within the prescribed period of four years, under s. 35 of the WT Act. The High Court set aside the order effecting rectification, on the ground that the question whether the Amendment Act applied to assessments which were already completed was a highly debatable question and, therefore, not a case of error apparent on the record. The Supreme Court reversing the said view held that such a question would arise only if it is really a case of completed assessment in the literal sense of the word. If the limitation for rectification had not expired, the order could not be said to have become final or complete merely because the time for filing an appeal had expired. The Supreme Court held -
Karnataka High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 14 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Tolaram Jalan vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 25 July, 1986

17. The learned advocate for the Revenue drew our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in J. M. Bhatia, AAC of Wealth-tax v. J.M. Shah [1-985] 156 ITR 474, where it was held by the Supreme Court that notwithstanding the fact that no appeal had been preferred against an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the prescribed time for appeal had been allowed to expire, it could not be contended that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had become final and the same continued to be liable to be modified under Section 35 within the period of limitation.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Maharaja Bahadur Singh Kasliwal And ... on 10 January, 1996

7. Faced with this situation, Shri Vyas in the alternative submitted that in case, it is felt that the contention of the assessees deserved to prevail, then the question, referred at the instance of the Department, may be left unanswered at this stage but with liberty to the Department to resort to Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act for rectification of the orders on account of the later decision of the Supreme Court terminating the very base and basis of the same. He placed reliance on J.M. Bhatia, AAC v. J.M. Shah [1985] 156 ITR 474 (SC) ; CWT v. Ginni Devi Jalan [1990] 186 ITR 168 (Patna) and Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. D.R. Trivedi, WTO [1975] 100 ITR 651 (Guj). Shri Chaudhary contended that in the event of grant of such a liberty, the assessees be also granted freedom to press the point of declaration dated October 19, 1964, in an effort to secure the same order on that basis.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S B Sakrikar - Full Document
1   2 Next