Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.71 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Surjan Singh, Kehar Singh, Prahlad, Rai ... on 10 October, 2002

Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2011

(supra) before the Tribunal, the facts were almost similar as in the present case. The Tribunal relied upon the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Ram Singh (supra) while holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in initiating the proceedings under Section 147/148 , but then, once he came to the conclusion, that the income, with respect to which he had entertained, his jurisdiction came to a stop at that, and did not continue to possess jurisdiction, to put to tax, any other income which subsequently came to his notice, in the course of the proceedings, which were found by him, to have escaped assessment.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 11 - M L Mehta - Full Document

Oriental Bank Of Commerce vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 August, 2014

26. That being the position, since no addition had been made in respect of reasons (a) and/or (b), in view of the decisions in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.(supra), Jet Airways (I) Ltd.(supra), Shri Ram Singh (supra) and Dr Devendra Gupta (supra), it was not open to the Assessing Officer to independently assess some other income [in this case, disallowance under Section 36(1)(viia)].
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 8 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 vs Sunlight Tour And Travels Pvt. Ltd. on 12 November, 2024

The Tribunal relied upon the case of CIT v. Shri Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) while holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in initiating the proceedings under section 147/148, but then, once he came to the conclusion that the income with respect to which he had entertained, his jurisdiction came to a stop at that, and did not continue to possess jurisdiction to put to tax any other income which subsequently came to his notice in the course of the proceedings, which were found by him, to have escaped assessment.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Kaushal Infraproject Industries India ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 30 December, 2019

16. The Learned D.R. relied upon the order of the AO. He has submitted that the land was within the municipal area / limit. PB-370 is agreement to sale to purchase land in Pooth Khurd, Delhi, Dated 15.11.2009. It is in Narela Zone, MCD. Ph-377 is assignment agreement dated 16.11.2009 by assessee. PB-362 to 369 are details of properties. The Learned D.R. referred to PB-81 to 82 (Departmental paper book) which is Delhi Municipal Corporation Amendment Act to show that the same extend only to Delhi and that Delhi means entire area of Union Territory of Delhi except New Delhi and Delhi Cantonment. The Learned D.R. therefore submitted that entire Delhi Municipal Corporation Act is applicable to entire Delhi. The learned D.R. relied upon Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Surjan Singh 125 taxman 1075 (Del.) in which it was held that capital gain arising on transfer of agricultural land in village Nangal Dewat, Delhi is chargeable to tax. It has been held that it is the population of the Municipality as a whole and not of any part of the area of it, that has to be taken into account for the purpose of section 2(14)(iii)(a) to determine, whether property in the particular 32 area is exigible to capital gains.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next