Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing C.I.T. Mumbai City Xiv, Mumbai vs The Income Tax Settlement Commission, ... on 28 July, 2000

Rajeev Bhel, Delhi vs Assessee on 29 June, 2016

44. Determination of this aspect is necessary in order to find out whether the assessment for a particular will abate or not. If it is a case of pending assessment, then in view of second proviso to section 153A, the assessment will abate but if it is a case of completed assessment, then the assessment will not abate. In this assessment year we find that return of income had been filed on 1.10.2010 and, therefore, notice u/s 143(2) could be issued up to 30.9.2011. Up to this date the assessment could be treated as pending assessment in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (supra), an assessment is to be considered as a pending assessment if on the date of search, time was available for issuance of notice u/s 143(2).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (Ir & Wt) on 28 May, 2010

It is therefore clear that interference can be made only if it is found that the order is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. The Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Income-tax Settlement Commission and others {(2000) 246 ITR 63}, has also laid down the scope of interference in such matters and the scope of writ jurisdiction has been explained thus at page 79:
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - T R Nair - Full Document

Ace Investments Ltd., A Company ... vs Settlement Commission, Income Tax And ... on 26 September, 2003

He would also rely upon a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND OTHERS (VOL. 26 2000 ITR 63). It is the admitted stand of the Department that the company did not make full and true disclosure of the facts regarding the real nature of the transaction with Express Newspapers Limited and N.N. Investment Private Limited and therefore the Commission ought to have rejected the application. He would also point out that though an application was made by the petitioners, in terms of Section 245C(3) of the Income Tax Act, the application cannot be withdrawn by the company and the company had to necessarily participate in the proceedings. In such circumstances, the only course to be adopted by the Commission is to dismiss the application as not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 23 - D Murugesan - Full Document

M/S. Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 February, 2010

In support of the proposition, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of C. Ex., Visakhapatnam Vs. True Woods Pvt. Ltd.7 Relying heavily on the decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Anil Chanana8 and a decision of the Bombay High Court in C.I.T. Mumbai City XIV, Mumbai Vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai & Ors.9, wherein while explaining the concept of compounding in terms of Rule 6 of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005, which confers power on the compounding authority to grant immunity from prosecution to a person who has made full and true disclosure of facts relating to the case and has 7 2006 (199) E.L.T. 388 (Delhi) 8 2008 (222) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) 9 2000 (246) ITR 63 (Bom) 13 cooperated in the proceedings before him, it was held that applications for compounding ought to be disallowed if there are demonstrable contradictions or inconsistencies or incompleteness in the case of the applicant, learned counsel asserted that in the light of the facts found by the Settlement Commission and affirmed by the High Court, the appellant does not deserve any further relief.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 49 - D K Jain - Full Document

M/S. Shriniwas Machine Craft Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Settlement Commission on 17 January, 2014

In support of its aboveconclusion the Settlement Commission relied upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Amrish Kumar Shukla reported as CIT vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission 210 Taxman Page 259 and the Kolkatta High Court in Outotec (W. P. No.341/2011 unreported decision dated 1 August 2011) titled as Director of Income Tax vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M S Sanklecha - Full Document
1   2 Next