Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Indra Prastha Chemicals (P) Ltd. And ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. on 16 August, 2004

Vijendra Kumar, Bulandshahr vs Department Of Income Tax

The co-ordiante Bench has also relied upon Indra Prastha Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 271 ITR 113 (All). In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances as they stand we are of the considered view that the departmental appeal does not have any merit. Being satisfied with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) and considering the same in the light of the settled legal principle the same is upheld. In the facts of the present case the assessee has further fortified the finding arrived at in the impugned order by the unrebutted arguments advanced namely that the AO has mechanically proceeded without verifying the 24 ITA No. 1202/Del/09 Asstt. year 1999-2000 correctness of the information given as not only the name of the donors as per the reasons recorded based on the information given is incorrect but even the amounts qua the facts in the assessee's order when compared with the reasons recorded is completely wrong.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mitsui Marubeni Corporation vs Dy. Director Of Income-Tax on 12 January, 2007

Reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Indra Prastha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. CIT (2004) 271 ITR 113 (All.) for the proposition that the reason to believe should be held in good faith and should have a rational connection and relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and should not be extraneous or irrelevant.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rashi Buildcon (P) Ltd., Mathura vs Assessee on 29 May, 2013

(2004) 271 ITR 113 (SC) Indra Prastha Chemicals P. Ltd v CIT) ITO vs. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur [1974] 97 ITR 239 (SC)/Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) - In these judgments it were held that Belief should not be arbitrary or irrational but based on relevant and material reasons - The important words under section 147 are 'has reason to believe' and these words are stronger than the words 'is satisfied'. The belief entertained by the ITO must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable or in other words it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. The Court cannot of course investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency 20 ITA No.407/Agra/2012 A.Y. 2004-05 of the reasons which have weighed with the ITO in coming to the belief, but the Court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing on the matters in regard to which he is required to entertain the belief before he can issue notice under section 147.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Brij Mohan , Bulandshahr vs Department Of Income Tax on 4 February, 2009

The co- ordiante Bench has also relied upon Indra Prastha Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 271 ITR 113 (All). In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances as they stand we are of the considered view that the departmental appeal does not have any merit. Being satisfied with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) and considering the same in the light of the settled legal principle the same is upheld. In the facts of the present case the assessee has further fortified the finding arrived at in the impugned order by the unrebutted arguments advanced namely that the AO has mechanically proceeded without verifying the correctness of the information given as not only the name of the donors as per the reasons recorded based on the information given is incorrect but even the amounts qua the facts in the assessee's order when compared with the reasons recorded is completely wrong.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Girraj Kishore, Prop., Hathras vs Department Of Income Tax on 18 July, 2012

to believe that such escapement is by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. If either of these conditions is not fulfilled, the notice issued by the ITO would be without jurisdiction. The important words under s. 147(a) are "has reason to believe" and these words are stronger than the words "is satisfied ". The belief entertained by the ITO must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable or in other words it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material. The court, of course, cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which have weighed with the ITO in coming to the belief, but the court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a hearing on the matters in regard to which he is required to entertain the belief before he can issue notice under S. 147(a). If there is no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the ITO could not have reason to believe that any part of the income of the assessee had escaped (See also (2004) 271 ITR 113 (SC) Indra Prastha Chemicals P. Ltd. vs. CIT) 9.6 In the case of ITO vs. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur [1974] 97 ITR 239 (SC)/Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC), it were 21 ITA Nos.124 & 120/Agr/2011 A.Ys. 1996-97 & 1997-98.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next