Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (4.75 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs. Gladys S. Koder vs Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward on 6 January, 1974

Singhal Brothers vs Income Tax Officer on 21 June, 1999

4. On behalf of the Revenue, Shri Amba Sankar Dev, the Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(A) was fully justified in upholding the assessment, in view of the fact that the assessee had been granted excess relief under s. 80HHC and in that sense there was escapement of income. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the proceedings for rectification under s. 154 were entirely different from the proceedings for assessment of escaped income. It was open to the AO to issue notice under s. 148, to disallow the excess relief allowed by assessing the interest income under a wrong head. It was stated that in the appeal the CIT(A) had cancelled the order of rectification for the reason that there was no mistake apparent on record as the issue was debatable and that no variation of the computation under s. 80HHC could be effected in the order under s. 154. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Mrs. Gladys S. Koder vs. ITO (1976) 104 ITR 220 (Ker) to contend that the spheres of rectification and reassessment might sometimes overlap. It was his contention that in spite of the order of rectification under s. 154, it was open to the AO to issue the notice under s. 148 to bring to tax the same income that had escaped assessment. As regards the deduction under s. 80HHC, the learned Departmental Representative stated that the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction on the entire income including interest on bank deposits and that when the AO found that there was excess relief allowed to the assessee, he could assume the jurisdiction to issue the notice under s. 148, and so the CIT(A) had correctly upheld the assessment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

U.B. Engineering Ltd. vs Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 September, 2007

22. Coming to the arguments of the learned senior D.R., we have already pointed out that we do not agree with his view that by filing an application under Section 154 the asses see wanted a back door entry to ward off the proceedings validly initiated under Section 147 which would result in concealment of income and subsequent penal proceedings to avail of RVSS. Firstly, the proceedings under Section 147 have only been initiated; these have not culminated into assessment and validity of such proceedings is yet to be established, and, secondly, there-is no surety that the proceedings under Section 147 will culminate into penalty proceedings/prosecution. We do agree with the contention of the learned that the A.O was free either to act under Section 147 or to act under Section 154 when both the options are available, as held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Sreerama Kurthy v. ITO (supra) and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Mrs. Gladys S. Koder v. ITO (supra). But, it is also a settled proposition of law that the course which favours the assessee should be adopted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 38 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sethi Wine Stores vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 August, 1984

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the Tribunal by its detailed and exhaustive order has considered the facts of this case and has also placed reliance on certain decisions which have been referred to by them in that order. He, therefore, submitted that the earlier assessment, though made in the capacity of an AOP, did not relate to M/s. Sethi Wine Stores of which the partners were the same as that of M/s. Pagoda Hotel and Restaurant. He, therefore, submitted that it was the duty of the owners to file their returns for the income derived from the wine business which having not been done, it is not necessary to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal and in support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decisions in Daffader Bhagat Singh and Sons v. ITO [1969] 71 ITR 417 (SC), Gladys S. Koder v. ITO [1976] 104 ITR 220,(Ker), CIT v. Rajinder Nath [1972] 85 ITR 296 (Delhi) and Rajinder Mohan Bhandari v. ITO [1978] 111 ITR 407 (Cal).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhanya Kumar Jain vs Asstt. Cit on 20 February, 2006

If someone otherwise volunteers for assessment, that may be of no consequence nor it will forestall the making of an assessment against a person legally liable to pay tax in respect of that income. The argument that as the same income has been assessed as a protective measure in the hands of Ram Prasad, individual, and, thus, no notice under section 148 could be issued to assess that income in the hands of Ram Prasad (HUF), is stated to be rejected. The invalidity of the impugned notices cannot be upheld on contention under discussion which is hereby rejected by saying that the assessment of an income in wrong hands would not preclude the assessing officer to initiate appropriate proceedings in the hands of a person who, in law, may be liable to be taxed in respect of that income.' Same view has been taken by Calcutta High Court in Rajinder Mohan Bhandari v. Income Tax Officer (1978) 111 ITR 407 (Cal) and by Kerala High Court in Mrs. Gladys S. Koder v. Income Tax Officer (1976) 104 ITR 220 (Ker). In view of these circumstances, we uphold the order of Commissioner (Appeals). "
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1