Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing Ala Chemicals P. Ltd., Palghar vs Dy Cit-5(1)(1), Mumbai on 28 November, 2022

M/S Dhadda International, Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 3 February, 2023

"I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. I have also perused the satisfaction as recorded by the Assessing Officer. The fact that Banwari Lal Group was indulging in accommodation entries was not in the knowledge of the Assessing Officer at the stage of the original assessment proceedings. The fact of the Appellant being served by the Banwari Lal Group came to the knowledge or the Assessing Officer only after the conclusion of the assessment proceedings. Once that information was received by the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing he perused the same and found in that context, that facts had not been fully and truly disclosed at the time of original assessment by the assessee. The information as received by the Assessing Officer is apparently specific and categorical. The Assessing Officer has recorded a clear satisfaction on this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ALA Firm vs. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 has ruled that a subsequent reopening or a case would be valid in the event of the information reaching the Assessing Officer after the assessment. The information communicated by the Investigation Wing was fresh and was unknown to the Assessing Officer at the time of concluding the assessment. The Assessing Officer put that in place and after complying with all the prescribed statutory formalities reopened the case. Considering the totality of the pleadings of the assessee and also the satisfaction note and other related issues I am of the view that the saving as devised in terms of the first proviso to section 147 would not be available to the assessee in the subject case because it will be neutralised by the Explanation to that section. The normal limitation of six years would, therefore, apply. Besides the subject case is not a simple case of 5 ITA Nos.6408 & 6409/Del./2016 ITA Nos.6691 & 6692/Del./2016 change of opinion. There is fresh material to stoke the change of opinion. In such circumstances, I am constrained to dismiss the additional ground as raised."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Goel Udyog, vs Department Of Income Tax

I.T.A. No.947/Del/08 9/12 the purpose of closing stock, the same has to be valued in the P&L A/c itself on the date of dissolution on market price and excess of market price of closintg stock on 17.9.1991 over the book value of closing stock on that date has to be assessed as profit of business of the assessee firm as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ALA Firm (supra). Regarding change in head of income, reliance was placed by the Ld DR of the revenue on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of DLF as reported in 34 DTR 105 (SB). Since no other defect is pointed out before us in the market price adopted by the Assessing Officer of these assets, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the business profit after including the difference in market value in closing stock as on 17.9.1991 and book value of closing stock as shown by the assessee in P&L A/c and such difference should be added in business income of the assessee. For the excess of market value over book value with regard to other assets i.e. land & building and plant & machinery, the same should be assessed as capital gain. Ground No.1 of the revenue is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hussain Ghulam Mohd. Machkal, Mumbai vs Assessee

The above discussion very clearly shows that there was a binding precedent available in the form of decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ipca Labs Ltd. [supra] still assessee chose to claim a wrong deduction and the decision was not brought to the notice of the AO, therefore, the reopening of the assessment is valid particularly in view o the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ALA Firm [supra] as well as ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. [supra].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Veena Estates P.Ltd vs Commissione Of Income Tax Mumbai ... on 11 January, 2024

12. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the department approached the Tribunal. The assessee also preferred a cross appeal against the said order. Both the appeals were heard together and decided by the Tribunal. In the Department's appeal, the Tribunal held that it was apparent from the facts that the assessee, after joining the firm, withdrew substantial amounts of money (from the capital account). It was observed that the real purpose for which the partnership firm was established, was neither for the smooth running of the project nor for the financial requirements, as sought to be made out by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that had the assessee sold the land to outsiders, in such event, the sale proceeds would have been liable to tax. Further the retirement of the assessee from the firm on 28 February, 1989, even before the project was completed, revealed the true intention of the Page 11 of 74 11 January, 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2024 05:28:57 ::: ITXA302_2002.DOC29-12-2023.DOC assessee, as also there was no evidence to show that the other partners were taken into the partnership either to buttress the purpose of the business or to expedite the project. It was hence observed that in such circumstances, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Sidharthbai's case (supra) and in ALA Firm vs. CIT6 was clearly applicable. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the department's appeal and restored the addition. The assessee's appeal against the order under section 263 was rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

M/S Man Diesel & Turbo India Ltd.,, ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 20 August, 2024

5.1.9 In the case of ALA Firm vs. CIT 189 ITR 285 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the assessing officer rightly initiated the proceedings for re-assessment after becoming aware of the relevant High Court decision even though it was available at the time of original assessment. The Hon'ble Court gave a view that the result of this decision is that the statute does not require that the information must be extraneous to the records. It is enough if the material, on the basis of which the reassessment proceedings are sought to be initiated, came to the notice of the ITO subsequent to the original assessment. If the ITO had considered and formed an opinion on the said material in the original assessment itself 8 ITA no. 4295/Del/2015 then he would be powerless to start the proceedings for the re-assessment. Where, however the ITO had not considered the material and subsequently came by the material from the record itself, then such a case would fall within the scope of section 147(c) of the Act."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandra Bros.,Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 37(1), Kolkata, Kolkata on 22 July, 2025

7. We have heard the submissions made and have also gone through the cases relied upon and the paper book filed. The case laws relied upon all do not support the case of the assessee as in the case of ALA Firm (supra) the issue related to chargeability of the income on account of revaluation on dissolution of the firm. The facts were that the assessee-firm was carrying on in Malaya, a money-lending business and, as part of and incidental to the said business, a business in the purchase and sale of house properties, gardens and estates. The firm's accounts for the year 1960-61, which commenced on 13-4-1960, would normally have come to a close on or about 13-3-1961. However, the firm closed its accounts as on 13-3-1961 with effect from which date it was dissolved. Along with its income-tax return for the assessment year 1961-62 the assessee filed on 10-4-1962, filed a profit and loss account and certain other statements. In the profit and loss account, a sum was shown as 'difference on revaluation of estates, gardens and house properties' on the dissolution of the firm on 13-3-1961. In the memo of Page 8 of 18 Page | 9 I.T.A. No.: 1572/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Chandra Bros.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1