Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (1.72 seconds)
Documents citing Equitable Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, G. Ward, And ... on 19 February, 1988

M/S Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd., ... vs Ito, Ward -1, Yamunanagar on 13 March, 2023

❖ MIMOSA INVESTMENT CO. (P) LTD. vs. ITO (2010) as reported in 6 ITR 789 "Penalty under s. 271 (1)(c)--Concealment of income-All relevant facts furnished with return--Mere fact that the AO while discharging his duty is recalculating the total income in accordance with law which is not the same as calculated by the assessee, it cannot be held that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income or there is a deemed concealment in accordance with Expln. 1 to s. 271(1)."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

India Steamship Co. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... on 11 February, 2005

In the case of Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. v. ITO, (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that where a notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, after obtaining the sanction of the CIT is challenged, the only document to be looked into for determining the validity of the notice is the report on the basis of which the sanction of the CIT has been obtained. The IT Department cannot rely on any other material apart from the report. In the case before it, the Calcutta High Court refused to take into consideration the affidavit filed by the IT Department giving some additional reasons."
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 9 - P K Chattopadhyay - Full Document

Tadikonda Ramulu, A Partnership Firm, ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 31 July, 1990

22. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (4 supra) to contend that we shall not look into the counter affidavit of the respondent to decide whether he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment due to omission or failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts material for the assessment. On a reading of the decision, what we find is that, it was rested on the proposition that the Income Tax Officer shall not add to or supplement his reasons and not that he shall not answer the allegations which the assessee had chosen to make in the Writ Petition. It shall not be as if we shall look into the allegations of the petitioner but close our eyes and ears to the replies by the respondent. In deciding the question of the existence or otherwise of reasons for the respondent to form the belief necessary under Section 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, we have confined ourselves to the record as it was at the time of issue of the notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next