Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 152 (2.12 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Ii vs Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala on 2 September, 1971

Monga Metals (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 June, 1999

In view of the above mentioned illegalities in the notice dt. 12th Dec., 1996 claimed by the Revenue to be a notice in terms of provisions of s. 158BC and the decision in case of CIT vs. Narain Das Dwarka Das (supra) and in case of CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (supra) and other decisions referred to in para 3.7 of this order, we are of the opinion that the impugned notice is vague and illegal and cannot be said to be a valid notice as required under the provisions of s. 158BC.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 90 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Vinod Kumar vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 30 June, 2004

11.3 In view of the abovementioned illegalities in the notice dt. 12th Dec., 1996, claimed by the Revenue to be a notice in terms of provisions of Section 158BC and the decision in case of CIT v. Narain Das Dwarka Das (supra) and in case of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (supra) and other decisions referred to in para 3.7 of this order., we are of the opinion that the impugned notice is vague and illegal and cannot be said to be a valid notice as required under the provisions of Section 158BC.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 68 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Monga Metals (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 June, 1999

In view of the above mentioned illegalities in the notice dated 12-12-1996 claimed by the revenue to be a notice in terms of provisions of section 158BC and the decision in case of CIT v. Narain Das Dwarka Das (supra) and in case of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (supra) and other decisions referred to in para 3. 7 of this order, we are of the opinion that the impugned notice is vague and illegal and cannot be said to be a valid notice as required under the provisions of section 158BC.
Allahabad High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs R.Y. Durlabhji on 27 May, 1992

The Tribunal then referred to CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas [1959] 36 ITR 569 (SC) and also to the case of CIT v. Kurban Hussain [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC) and held that the reassessment proceedings for the year 1967-68 are invalid because of the pendency of the earlier reassessment proceedings at the time of issue of the notice to the assessee. The Tribunal then examined the facts which were brought on record and observed :
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 32 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer, "E" Ward And Ors. vs Chandi Prasad Modi on 17 March, 1978

30. In our view, as most of" the cases cited at the Bar on behalf of the parties are distinguishable because of the peculiar facts of those cases, it is not necessary to deal with those cases, in any detail. It is well settled that the ITO's jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under Section 147 (Section 34of the 1922 Act) would depend upon the issuance of a valid notice. If the notice issued by him is invalid for any reason then the entire proceedings that would be taken by him pursuant to such notice would be void for want of jurisdiction. The service of a valid notice is a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the ITO to take further proceedings under Section 147 of the 1961 Act or Section 34 of the 1922 Act. See CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala and B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal).
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Wipro Finance Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 March, 2003

23. The learned counsel further contended that all the decisions which are. relevant for concluding the validity of a notice under Section 148 are also relevant to judge the validity of a notice under Section 158BC, In this, regard, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (supra) in which it has been held that it is well-settled that the ITO's jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under Section 34 of the IT Act, 1922, depends upon the issuance of a valid notice.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 53 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Baby Marine Exports on 26 June, 1997

According to the learned counsel for the assessee, in the light of the provisions of s. 297(2)(b) and (c) read with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahiruji Mthaborwala (supra), the law as on 1st April, 1989, was not applicable to the assessment years in question and, therefore, the AO did not have jurisd~.ction to issue notice under s. 148.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next