Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 82 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Anandji Haridas & Co. (P.) Ltd vs S. P. Kushare, S. T. O. Nagpur & Ors on 28 September, 1967

Shyama Charan Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 8 April, 1974

Not only in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax2, but also in Anandji Haridas & Co. v. S.P. Kushare A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 565, the Supreme Court clearly held that as the unit of assessment under the Central Provinces Sales Tax Act is a quarter, the period in Section 11-A can only mean a quarter, and that limitation of three years has to be computed for each quarter separately.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Calcutta Steel Co. Ltd. on 9 April, 1980

Ltd. v. S. P. Kushare, STO [1968] 21 STC 326 was entirely on a different basis. Firstly, even though it was a sales tax case, the principle might be the same. There, originally there was no return filed. That knowledge that there was no return filed originally was brought to the knowledge of the STO subsequently. Therefore, this was a subsequent knowledge of a fact, and it was certainly to be considered an information in terms of the requirement of the section. Here, in this case, even if it be considered to be a subsequent information, the materials were on record but that had not been considered. Then, if that was subsequently considered, the question might arise whether the subsequent consideration of the old materials on record would constitute information in terms of that section. Here, admittedly, in view of the matter that the assessee had originally made a larger claim for deduction under Section 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961, and had, after filing the return, subsequently moved and reduced its claim and that it was brought to the knowledge of the ITO clearly established that this question, viz., whether this reduced claim, as claimed by the assessee under Section 35B of the Indian I.T. Act, 1961, was brought to the notice of the ITO and he had considered this aspect of the matter. If, on a consideration of this aspect of the matter, he had taken a view, then there being no subsequent view or subsequent opinion on any law of any authority competent to pronounce on law or subsequent information on any fact, a mere examination of old records afresh would not be a change of opinion on the basis of or in consequence of the information but really be a change of opinion--change of opinion simpliciter--on an appraisal of the old materials which would not be in consequence of any information as such. If that is the position, then, in our opinion, the reopening under Clause (b) of Section 147 of the I.T. Act was without basis.
Calcutta High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 7 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 November, 1978

15. The next case we shall consider is the case of Anandji Haridas and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. S.P.Kushare, STO , relied on by Mr. Balai Pal. The section involved in this case was s. 11 of the C. P. & Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, which provides that if in consequence of any information which has come into his possession, the Commissioner was satisfied that any turnover of a dealer during any period has been underassessed or has escaped assessment, etc , he may, at any time, after following certain procedure, reassess the tax payable. In this connection, the Supreme Court observed that information need not be about any fact, it may be even as to the legal position. In this connection, the Supreme Court observed as follows (p. 337) :
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer, Company Circle, ... vs Margarine And Refind Oil Co. Ltd. on 23 June, 1980

Further, unlike the provisions considered in Anandji's case , there is a period of limitation prescribed both under s. 35 of the 1922 Act and s. 147(b) of the 1961 Act which is applicable to all persons equally. Therefore, in our opinion, the specification of different time-limits in s. 35 of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, and s. 147(b) of the I. T. Act, 1961, brings about not discrimination justifying any conclusions that s. 35 offends art. 14.
Karnataka High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

B.C. Nawn And Bros. Pvt. Ltd. vs Certificate, Officer And Ors. on 2 May, 1969

The question was answered in the negative and this decision has been followed on this point in Anandji v. Kushare A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 565 (574). It is to be noted that Section 12(5) of the Orissa Act corresponds to Section 11(2) of the Bengal Act and lays down the procedure that is to be followed where a dealer has failed to get himself registered. This decision does not relate to the situation under Section 11(1) of the Bengal Act. It is in this context that the Supreme Court said that it did not matter if one notice was issued comprising several quarters, but the eventual order of assessment "was made for each quarter separately". It was expressly observed (para. 7, ibid.) that though the notice might include several quarters, the return has, however, to be submitted in Form IV which read with Rule 20 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, requires the assessee to furnish details of his turnover for each quarter. The assessment must, therefore, be made on the taxable turnover of each quarter.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next