Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 112 (5.81 seconds)
Documents citing Income Tax Officer, Income ... vs Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur on 16 October, 1974

Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co. vs Income-Tax Officer, A Ward, Quilon. on 26 August, 1975

In Income-tax Officer v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur 1 the assessee was the Nizam of Hyderabad. He had executed three trust deeds for the benefit of three ladies and some children describing the ladies as his wives and the children his children. In reply to certain queries he informed the Income-tax Officer that the three women were not reallly his wives as they had not been lawfully married by him and that the children were not his legitimate children. The Income-tax Officer accepted the statement and made the assessment without including income from the assets covered by the trust deeds. Later, two other trust deeds were executed by the assessee in favour of one of those ladies and the children of two of those ladies, again describing the ladies as his wives and the children as his children. Then the Income-tax Officer issued notice for reassessment under section 147(a). The Supreme Court said that the two later trust deeds did not furnish any fresh material as the same description of the ladies and their children was there even in the three earlier trust deeds and that the law had not changed after the original assessments were made and held that if at the time of the original assessment it was open to the Income-tax Officer to raise the presumption that the three ladies were the wives of the assessee and their children the assessees children and he did not do that, it was not open to the officer to correct that mistake later by resorting to section 147(a).
Kerala High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Govinda Choudhury And Sons vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward "A" And Ors. on 2 May, 1975

26. Keeping the legal position in view and taking the facts of the case into consideration in the light of the materials indicated above, we have no hesitation in our minds to conclude as a fact that the primary facts relating to the work-site account had been disclosed to the Income-tax Officer in each of the five years at the time assessment was done and for the reasons best known to the assessing officers, the amounts appearing in the worksite account were considered not to be taxable. There was thus no failure on the part of the assessee to discharge his duties as required under the law. Learned standing counsel for the revenue has conceded before us that if the finding be that the accounts had been produced and primary facts had been disclosed, subsequently the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to initiate a proceeding under Section 147 of the Act merely upon a change of his opinion. The concession is based upon the settled position in law and it is not necessary to refer at length to precedents. See Income-tax Officer v. Barkea Ali Khan [1974] 97 ITR 239 (SC). Obviously, therefore, steps for reassessment under Section 147(a) of the Act are not tenable.
Orissa High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer, 'G' Ward And Ors. vs Selected Dalurband Coal Co. P. Ltd. on 24 December, 1976

44. Two Supreme Court decisions relied upon by Mr. Pal, namely, Income-tax Officer v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur [1974] 97 ITR 239 and Gemini Leather Stores v. Income-tax Officer [1975] 100 ITR 1 indicate the application of well-settled principles of law on the point in the facts of a particular case. I am not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Pal that in the aforesaid decisions there was deviation of any principle of law by the Supreme Court from its previous decisions.
Calcutta High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 189 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next