Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 269 (3.18 seconds)
Documents citing Modern Fibotex India Ltd. And Anr. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 7 March, 1994

Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 5 June, 2003

In such a situation, the notice under section 143(2) dated 18-4-1991, having been served on assessee on 26-4-1991, that is prior to the service of intimation under section 143(1)(a) on 7-8-1991, the said intimation served on assessee on 7-8-1991, being subsequent to the issuance and service of notice under section 143(2), must be held to be invalid in view of decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in (1996) 222 ITR 140 (Guj) (supra) and of Hon'ble Calcutta Hiah court in Modern Fibotex India Ltd. & Anr. v. Dy. CIT & Ors. (supra). The factual and legal position being as above, we find the prima facie adjustment together with the intimation dated 18-4-1991, served on assessee on 26-4-1991, to be not valid/tenable and in turn liable to be quashed. We order accordingly.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Parikh Engineering And Body Building ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 September, 1998

In Modern Fibotex India Limited v. Deputy CIT [1995] 212 ITR 496 (Cal), the assessee-company had received cash compensatory support to the tune of Rs. 7,99,144 from the Government. In its return for the assessment year 1988-89 the company claimed that the amount was not taxable. The amount was, however, taxed in view of the provisions of Section 28 of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 1990 (with effect from April 1, 1967), and accordingly the intimation was issued. The application filed by the assessee under Sections 154 and 264 of the Act having gone in vain, the assessee filed a writ petition. Allowing the petition, the Calcutta High Court held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to decide a debatable point, and when the assessee had shown the amount in its return, no intimation taking into account the amended provisions of Section 28 could be issued.
Patna High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 12 - A Alam - Full Document

Dcit, Dehradun vs Ramesh Batta, Dehradun on 29 March, 2017

In Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT-IV (supra), one of the questions framed was whether the ITAT erred on facts and in law in not holding that re-computation of book profit, de-hors any material found during the course of search, in the order passed under Section 153A of the Act was without jurisdiction, being outside the scope of proceedings under that Section? The facts of the case were that there was incriminating material found during the course of search conducted in the premises of the Assessee on 18th January, 2006 and subsequent dates. This included a statement of the General Manager (Marketing). On the basis of the said material and statement additions were made to the disclosed income under Section 115 JB although no material was found specific to such addition. The Court held that under Section 153A "the additions need not be restricted or limited to the incriminating material, which was found during the course of search." Consequently even if no incriminating material was found for the addition under Section 115JB of the Act, since there was some incriminating material found which would sustain additions made and since the 'total income' had to be computed, they were sustained by the High Court."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

National Newsprint & Paper Mills Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax. ... on 15 July, 1997

16. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the documents filed by the parties. It is obvious from record that after filing the revised return a letter dt. 10th May, 1991, was issued by the AO in which a clarification with regard to the provisions of Rs. 84.06 lacs made on estimate basis for pending settlement of pay structure of workers and supervisory staff, was sought and the assessee was allowed to file a reply within a week's time. This letter was followed by two notices dt. 26th July, 1991, issued under s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act whereby the date of hearing was fixed on 23rd August, 1991, and the assessee was asked to produce all the relevant books of accounts, vouchers, bills, etc. on the date of hearing. After going through these letters and the notices it appears to us that the AO had made up his mind to frame a regular assessment on the basis of revised return, but thereafter the AO issued an intimation after making prima facie adjustment under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act on 27th September, 1991. We find force in the argument of the assessee that once the proceedings for framing the regular assessment have been initiated by issuing a notice under s. 143(2) or 142(1) the AO is precluded from making prima facie adjustment under s. 143(1)(a). The Calcutta High Court has specifically held in the case of Modern Fibotex India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (supra) that once the notice under s. 143(2) has been issued, there is no scope for the authorities either to make prima facie adjustment on the basis of the return, as filed, or issue an intimation under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next