Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing P.M. Bharucha & Co. vs G.S. Venkatesan Income-Tax Officer, ... on 11 October, 1968

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Vision Town Planners (P) Ltd., ... on 19 March, 2019

12. We are also supported by several judicial precedents that because a wrong reference to the power under which an order is made does not per se vitiate the order if there is some other power under which the order could lawfully be made [P.M. Bharucha & Co. v. G.S. Venkatesan, (1969) 74 ITR 513(Guj) ; Giridharilal Jhajharia v. CIT, (1970) 78 ITR 133(Cal) ; VR. C. RM. Adaikkappa Chettiar v. CIT, (1970) 78 ITR 285(Mad) ; Bidyut Prova Raha v. ITO, (1971) 79 ITR 187(Assam) ; Indra Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (1971) 80 ITR 400(Cal) ; CIT v. Satnam Transport Co. (Pr.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Kaul, New Delhi vs Ito, Ward-24(4), New Delhi on 7 January, 2020

6.1 In view of the law pronounced in the L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 12 (SC), ITO vs. Seghu Buchiah Setty (1964) 52 ITR 538 (SC) : TC52R.1343 and P.M. Bharucha & Co. vs. ITO (1969) 74 ITR 513 (Guj), it is well settled that where the power to proceed is actually there, the mere reference to a wrong section for authority to act, will not vitiate the action taken.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mandal Ginning And Pressing Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Keshavlal ... on 28 July, 1972

This decision was followed by a Division Bench of this court in P.M. Bharucha and Co. v. G.S. Venkatesan, Income-tax Officer. It would, therefore, appear that a proceeding for rectification of an assessment under section 23 is a proceeding for assessment; it is part of the procedure for ascertainment and imposition of tax liability on the assessee. When an assessment made under section 23 is rectified by an order of rectification, what was a wrong quantification of tax liability is rectified and a corrected quantification of tax liability is substituted for it. This may result in enhancement of the amount of the tax liability or reduction of the amount of the tax liability. Where the amount of the tax liability is enhanced by reason of the rectification made by the Income-tax Officer, can it be said that the enhanced tax liability is the result assessment under section 23 ? Is the enhanced tax liability, whether by reason of enhanced computation of the amount of income or by reason of enhanced determination of tax alone, the result of exercise of power under section 23 or is it the result of exercise of power under section 35, sub-section (1) ? When an order of rectification is passed under section 35, sub-section (1), undoubtedly rectifies the assessment under section 23, but the enhanced tax liability which results from it, owes its validity to the exercise of power under section 35, sub-section (1), and not to the exercise of power under section 23. The source of the power under which the enhanced tax liability arises is not section 23 but section 35, sub-section (1). It is, therefore, difficult to see how the enhanced tax liability, or, in other words, enhanced assessment resulting from the exercise of power under section 35, sub-section (1), can be said to be assessment under section 23. The corrected quantification of tax liability of tax liability which is made by the order of rectification is nothing but a process of assessment and, therefore, the enhanced assessment which results from it is an assessment under section 35, sub-section (1). Once an assessment under section 23 is made, it is final and conclusive, unless the conditions exist which entitle the Income-tax Officer to disturb the finality of the assessment under section 34 or section 35. When the Income-tax Officer disturbs the finality of the assessment by rectifying it in exercise of the power conferred under section 35, sub-section (1), he acts de hors section 23 with a view to overriding an erroneous part of the assessment under section 23. It is impossible to conceive how this act of the Income-tax Officer can be regarded as assessment under section 23. We may point out that there is nothing in the Act which gives a mandate or creates a fiction that, when the Income-tax Officer rectifies an assessment in exercise of the power conferred under section 35, sub-section (1), he must follow the procedure laid down in sections 22 and 23 as we find in section 34 nor is there any fiction created by the statute that when an assessment is rectified in exercise of the powers conferred under section 35, sub-section (1), the rectified assessment shall be deemed to be an assessment under section 23 or shall be treated as an assessment under section 23.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Mandal Ginning And Pressing Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 July, 1972

7. This decision was followed by a Division Bench of this court in P.M. Bharucha and Co. v. G.S. Venkatesan, Income-tax Officer. It would, therefore, appear that a proceeding for rectification of an assessment under 23 is a proceeding for assessment; it is part of the procedure for ascertainment and imposition of tax liability on the assessee. When an assessment made under 23 is rectified by an order of rectification, what was a wrong quantification of tax liability is rectified and a corrected quantification of tax liability is substituted for it. This may result in enhancement of the amount of the tax liability or reduction of the amount of the tax liability. Where the amount of the tax liability is enhanced by reason of the rectification made by the Income-tax Officer, can it be said that the enhanced tax liability is the result assessment under 23 ? Is the enhanced tax liability, whether by reason of enhanced computation of the amount of income or by reason of enhanced determination of tax alone, the result of exercise of power under 23 or is it the result of exercise of power under 35, sub- (1) ? When an order of rectification is passed under 35, sub- (1), undoubtedly rectifies the assessment under 23, but the enhanced tax liability which results from it, owes its validity to the exercise of power under 35, sub- (1), and not to the exercise of power under 23. The source of the power under which the enhanced tax liability arises is not 23 but 35, sub- (1). It is, therefore, difficult to see how the enhanced tax liability, or, in other words, enhanced assessment resulting from the exercise of power under 35, sub- (1), can be said to be assessment under 23. The corrected quantification of tax liability of tax liability which is made by the order of rectification is nothing but a process of assessment and, therefore, the enhanced assessment which results from it is an assessment under 35, sub- (1). Once an assessment under 23 is made, it is final and conclusive, unless the conditions exist which entitle the Income-tax Officer to disturb the finality of the assessment under 34 or 35. When the Income-tax Officer disturbs the finality of the assessment by rectifying it in exercise of the power conferred under 35, sub- (1), he acts de hors 23 with a view to overriding an erroneous part of the assessment under 23. It is impossible to conceive how this act of the Income-tax Officer can be regarded as assessment under 23. We may point out that there is nothing in the Act which gives a mandate or creates a fiction that, when the Income-tax Officer rectifies an assessment in exercise of the power conferred under 35, sub- (1), he must follow the procedure laid down in s 22 and 23 as we find in 34 nor is there any fiction created by the statute that when an assessment is rectified in exercise of the powers conferred under 35, sub- (1), the rectified assessment shall be deemed to be an assessment under 23 or shall be treated as an assessment under 23.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Aop Of Sanjaybhai R. Patel & 11 Ors. vs Assessing Officer on 15 January, 2004

In this connection, he relied on the decision of this court in the case of P.M. Bharucha & Go. v. G.S. Venkatesan, ITO (1969) 74 ITR 513 (Guj) wherein this court has taken the view that "the question whether capital gain in the hands of the firm would be business income in the hands of the partners was a highly debatable question on which there might conceivably be two opinions, and therefore even if any mistake was committed by the officer, it was not a mistake apparent from the record so as to attract the corrective jurisdiction under section 35 of the old Act."
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - K A Puj - Full Document

Sapjaybhai R. Patel vs Assessing Officer on 15 January, 2004

In this connection, he relied on the decision of this court in the case of P.M. Bharucha & Co. v. G.S. Venkatesan, ITO (1969) 74 ITR 513 (Guj) wherein this court has taken the view that "the question whether capital gain in the hands of the firm would be business income in the hands of the partners was a highly detabable question on which there might conceivably be two opinions, and therefore even if any mistake was committed by the officer, it was not a mistake apparent from the record so as to attract the corrective jurisdiction under section 35 of the old Act."
Gujarat High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - K A Puj - Full Document
1   2 3 Next