Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Kanpur Industrial Works vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. on 12 April, 1965

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A.K. Das on 27 August, 1969

For that purpose reliance was placed on the authority in Kanpur Industrial Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax already quoted. But, then, there, in that case, the increase of the assessment was the total ambit of the appeal. In fact, there it was held that the point of no assessability at all should not be allowed o be raised as against the whole assessment but confined only to the part of the increase in assessment which was the subject-matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. It was in that case that the word "incongruity" has been used and the incongruity was avoided by suggesting the course, that legal assessability was not generally to be the issue and not allowed to be raised but in so far as it affected the increase only in the assessment, it was allowed. To follow such a course in this case would be not only incongruous but completely illogical. If the penalty proceedings were invalid in law altogether, then there can be no question of the penalty being lower than the minimum statutory limit, for ex hypothesis the penalty did not come under the statute at all.
Calcutta High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 24 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Mahendra A. Patel, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 11 April, 2012

"It has further held that the respondent in an appeal is undoubtedly entitled to support the decree which is in his favour on any grounds which are available to him, even though the decision of the lower Court in his favour may not have been based on those grounds. It has further held that if the appellant in his challenge to the decree of the lower Court is entitled to take a new ground not agitated in the Court below by leave of the Court, there appears to be no reason why a respondent in support of the decree in his favour passed by the lower Court should not be entitled to agitate a new ground and subject to the same limitation. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken a similar view in Kanpur Industral Works vs. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 407 (All). That judgment has considered the position of an appeal under s. 33 of the IT Act along with the relevant Rules and that of an appeal under the CPC and the provisions of O. XLI, r. 22. The judgment holds that when the Department files an appeal for an increase in the assessed income, the subject-matter of the appeal is the increase claimed by the Department and the assessee can urge any ground of defence even though it might have been rejected by the AAC for showing that there should be no increase. It has further held that that the assessee is not liable to be assessed at all is a ground for showing that there should be no further assessment and the Department ' s appeal can therefore be resisted on that ground and that there is no incongruity in maintaining the assessment order passed against the assessee and yet refusing to increase it on the ground that he was not liable to be assessed at all. The judgment points out however that if the Tribunal accepts the ground of defence that the assessee was not liable to be assessed, it can only refuse to increase the assessed income as only such an order would be within the scope of the appeal filed by the Department and anyother order such as annulling the assessment would be outside the scope of the appeal. That judgment holds that the position of an appeal under s. 33 of the IT Act and an appeal under the CPC is identical.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Anand Prakash Goenka on 30 September, 1994

16. But we find that the department is in appeal and the assessee is only a respondent. The assessee-respondent can urge any ground of defence for showing and proving that there should be no increase in the assessee's income and may resist the appeal even on this ground that the assessee is not liable to be assessed at all. But if we quash the assessment order as it is not in accordance with the provisions of law, it will not be "an order on the appeal" as held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Industrial Works v. CIT[1966] 59 ITR 407. In this case it was held that if the Tribunal accepts the ground of defence that the assessee was not liable to be assessed at all, it can only refuse to increase the assessed income as only that will be "an order on the appeal" by the department, any other order such as annulling the assessment would be outside the scope of the appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Parshuram D. Patil vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 January, 2006

Under Section 254(1), the Tribunal is not competent to give a finding which is adverse to the assessee and make the latter's position worse than before, thus resulting in an enhancement of the assessment Puranmal Radhakishan and Co. v. CIT , v. Ramaswamy Iyengar v. CIT (1960) 40 ITR 377 (Mad), The Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1945) 13 ITR 272 (Bom), F.Y. Khambhaty v. CIT , New India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT , Kanpur Industrial Works v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 407 (All), G. Vijayaranga Mudaliar v. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 853 (Mad).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oil India Limited vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 June, 1981

12. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Industrial Works v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 407 (All). In this case, the department filed an appeal for an increase in the assessed income, the subject-matter of the appeal was the increase claimed by the department and in such a case the assessee could urge any ground of defence, even though it might have been rejected by the AAC for showing that there should be no increase. But if the Tribunal accepts the ground of defence that the assessee was not liable to be assessed at all, it can only refuse to increase the assessed income as only that will be "an order on the appeal" by the department. Any other order such as annulling the assessment would be outside the scope of the appeal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Mukharji - Full Document

B.R. Bamasi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 16 February, 1970

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken a similar view in Kanpur Industrial Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax. That judgment has considered the position of an appeal under section 33 of the Income-tax Act along with the relevant Rules and that of an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of Order XLI, rule 22. The judgment holds that when the department files an appeal for an increase in the assessed income, the subject-matter of the appeal is the increase claimed by the department and the assessee can urge any ground of defence even though it might have been rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for showing that there should be no increase. It has further held that that the assessee is not liable to be assessed at all is a ground for showing that there should be no further assessment and the department's appeal can therefore be resisted on that ground and that there is no incongruity in maintaining the assessment order passed against the assessee and yet refusing to increase it on the ground that he was not liable to be assessed at all. The judgment points out however that if the Tribunal accepts the ground of defence that the assessee was not liable to be assessed, it can only refuse to increase the assessed income as only such an order would be within the scope of the appeal filed by the department and any other order such as annulling the assessment would be outside the scope of the appeal. That judgment holds that the position of an appeal under section 33 of the Income-tax Act and an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure is identical.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 58 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next