Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Saheli Synthetics (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 October, 1995

Smt.Neetaa Suneel Shah vs The Income Tax Officer on 31 December, 2018

(b) In (2008) 302 ITR 126 (Guj), Saheli Synthetics P. Ltd., Vs. CIT, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has observed that even where an assessment is set aside simpliciter, without any enhancement proposal, it is always in the context of the appeal against an order of assessment and cannot be read to mean that the Appellate Authority granted powers to the Assessing Officer in relation to items of assessment which never formed part of the appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K R Baabu - Full Document

Bhartiben Bharatbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 29 December, 2005

Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics Pvt Ltd v. CIT, 302 ITR126 also categorically took a similar view in the background of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed and noted that it is not open to the Appellate Authority to travel outside the record, that is, the return made by the assessee or the assessment order of the Income Tax Officer with a view to point out a new source of income. In the light of view taken in these decisions, we are of the opinion that a new round can be permitted in appeal so long as the relevant facts are on record and the ground sought to be raised could not have been raised earlier for good reasons.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Millat Fibers, Surat vs Assessee

In the present case, the matter was restored back by the Tribunal to the file of Assessing Officer for re-deciding the matter in connection with the addition made by AO u/s 41(1) and hence, in our considered opinion, as per this judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Saheli Synthetics P. Ltd. (supra), in the second round, this plea cannot be taken by the Revenue that if the addition is not sustainable u/s.41(1), the same should be sustained u/s.68 of the Act. Apart from this, we have also observed that in the facts of the present case, the provision of Section 68 are not attracted because the credits in question are in respect of purchases of the present year and against these purchases, there is corresponding sale or closing stock and unless this contention of the assessee is controverted by showing that these purchases are not having any corresponding sale or closing stock, the addition u/s.68 cannot be made with regard to these credits in the books of the assessee particularly when the assessee has duly furnished the confirmation and there is corresponding sale or closing stock against these purchases. Hence, this contention of Ld. DR of the Revenue is rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Tax Recovery Officer-I vs M/S. Sree Foundation on 18 April, 2017

7.The other decisions relied on by the writ petitioner/ first respondent are, the case of Blue Star Limited vs. Union of India, reported in 2009 SCC Online Bombay 1632 by the Bombay High Court ; Surrendra Overseas Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, reported in 120 ITR 872, passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court ; and the decision of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Saheli Synthetics P. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 302 ITR 126 ; However, the said decisions also would not apply to the facts of the instant case.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, New Delhi vs Shri Prem Prakash, New Delhi on 6 March, 2026

18. As discussed above, the AO has no jurisdiction to complete the set aside proceedings when the seized material was not before the Ld CIT(A) at the time of set aside. It is settled proposition that even the Ld CIT(A) cannot make addition or enhance the addition without any notice of enhancement. Regarding set aside proceedings also, first Ld CIT(A) has to issue enhancement notice, he has to get the response on the issue of enhancement from the assessee, only after which he can set aside the proceedings to the AO to make fresh assessment. As held in the case of Saheli Synthetics (P) 48 ITA No.5136/Del/1998 Limited (supra) that it is not possible to define a set aside assessment as either open set aside or a conditional set aside or a limited set aside. The set aside assessment made by the appellate authority is always in accordance with the directions given by the appellate authority for making a fresh assessment. Therefore, the information what was available at the time of set aside alone is the material to be applied for completing the set aside proceedings. Subsequently, any new material is made available to the AO, he must apply the same as per law depending upon the quality of material. In the given case, the material available with the AO is the seized material from the possession of the third party, AO must have initiated the proceedings as per law. As discussed above, the AO only had the option to proceed to make separate proceedings u/s 158BD only to the extent of undisclosed income unearthed during the search. Therefore, the order passed by the AO utilizing the material found during the search in the set aside proceedings is bad in law. Therefore, we are inclined not to disturb the findings of Ld CIT(A) for quashing the assessment order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner vs Sidmak on 4 April, 2011

Though not seriously disputing, our prima facie reading of the tribunal's order is that it lacks reasons, Counsel for the assessee submitted that even otherwise the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable. He submitted that the Assessing Officer was passing a fresh order upon remand by the CIT(Appeals). Such remand was on limited point and Assessing Officer therefore, could not have reopened entire assessment in view of decision of this Court in case of Saheli Synthetics P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2008) 302 ITR 126(Guj).
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document
1