Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Parag Nivesh (P) Ltd. vs Deputy Cobowsioner Of Income Tax & Ors. on 27 August, 1999

Ellenbarrie Industrial Gases Ltd. vs Joint Cit on 20 November, 2001

(1) Whether, the single Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace & Co. v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 13 (Cal) can still be considered to hold good even after delivery of subsequent contrary decisions by the Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Parag Nivesh (P) Ltd. v. Dy CIT & Ors. (1999) 240 ITR 419 (Cal) and Caltradeco Steel Sales (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Dy. CIT (2000) 14 DTC 347 (Cal-HC) : (2000) 243 ITR 643 (Cal) holding that whereas only "undisclosed income" shah form the subject-matter of 'block assessments' made under section 158BC/158BD, on the other hand all disclosed income shall be treated only in the 'regular assessment' made under section 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
Calcutta High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ambeshwar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 23 October, 2002

I. Even otherwise the income of the appellant was exempt by the principle of mutuality which aspect has not been denied by the AO as is borne out from para 7 of his order. The proceedings taken under Section 158BD were, in fact, wrong and not as per the spirit of law. No satisfaction has been recorded by the AO before taking any action under Section 158BD. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the case of Ved Prakash Sanjay Kumar v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 107 Taxman 242 (Chd) and in the case of Parag Nivesh (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT and Ors. (1999) 108 Taxman 127 (Call The learned authorised representation further objected to the observations of the AO on the aspect of non-cooperation by the appellant. In fact, the AO himself has dropped the proceedings taken under Section 158BC. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that there has been a failure for audit of accounts under Section 142(2A) on the part of the appellant. The learned counsel has drawn a reference to para 7 of the assessment order, where the AO is stated to have alleged that the profits are being pocketed by the office bearers. From this it is clearly borne out that the profits were never earned by the appellant: Even otherwise income was exempt due to mutuality concept. The assessee's counsel maintains that it was a covered case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ellenbarrie Industrial Gases Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 20 November, 2001

(1) Whether, the single Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace & Co. v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 13 (Cal) can still be considered to hold good even after delivery of subsequent contrary decisions by the Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Parag Nivesh (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT and Ors. (1999) 240 ITR 419 (Cal) and Caltradeco Steel Sales (P) Ltd and Ors. re. Dy. CTT 369 holding that whereas only "undisclosed income" shall form the subject-matter of 'block assessments' made under Section 158BC/158BD, on the other hand all disclosed income shall be treated only in the 'regular assessment' made under Section 143(3)7144 of the IT Act, 1961 ?
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1