M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs Pr Cit -2 Indore, Indore on 20 July, 2021
b. Reliance Corpoation & Anr. V. ITO & Anr. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1443
(Mum-Trip);
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.76 seconds)Shri Cdr, Udai Singh, Bhopal vs The Acit 3(1), Bhopal on 19 January, 2017
8.1 In Qudai International vs. Income Tax Officer 2009 (13) MTC 622 (Trib),
the ITAT Lucknow Bench 'A' held that "mere raising of query by the
Assessing Officer did not amount to detection of concealment. It cannot
therefore, be said that the revised return was filed after detection of
concealment and was not voluntary. The term "detection" itself implies the
Assessing Officer had reached a conclusion but the query raised by the
12
CDR Udai Singh
ITA No. 791/Ind/2014
Assessing Officer was only first step in detection of concealment. If the
assessee voluntarily revised the return, it could not be said that it does not
fulfill requirements of section 139(5) of the Act." The facts of the present
case are also similar to the facts of the aforesaid referred to case.
Godore Tools (India) (P.) Ltd. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 25 March, 1988
In this connection he placed reliance on the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Reliance International Corpn. Ltd. (supra) in. which a contrary view had been, taken.
Mahavir Plantations (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 18 August, 1989
30. Regarding the taxability of the cash compensatory support, I am of the view that it is taxable for the following reasons: The Delhi 'B' Bench of the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Gedore Tools (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and while Delhi 'A' Bench in the case of Reliance International Corp. Ltd. (supra), and also the Cochin Bench in the case of Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) decided the issue in favour of the revenue. In the present case my learned brother had preferred to follow the decision of the Delhi 'B' Bench which was in favour of the assessee in preference to the later decision of the Delhi 'A' Bench referred to above. In the case decided by the Delhi 'B' Bench, that Bench did not consider the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs India Gelatine And Chemicals Ltd. on 7 April, 2004
11. On the other hand, Mr Tanvish U Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue has submitted that duty draw back is as much an incentive as cash assistance in the nature of CCS being given by the Government for the development of foreign market for Indian products and commodities. The learned counsel has referred to the decisions of the ITAT, Delhi in Indo Asian Switchgears Ltd. vs. IAC, (1985) 12 ITD 65 and in Reliance International Corpn. vs. ITO, 16 ITD 43 for the purpose of referring to the report of the Estimates Committee (1981-82) as contained in its 23rd Report (7th Lok Sabha).
Ashok Raj Nath, Panipat vs Department Of Income Tax
8.1 In Qudai International vs. Income Tax Officer 2009 (13) MTC 622 (Trib), the
ITAT Lucknow Bench 'A' held that "mere raising of query by the Assessing
Officer did not amount to detection of concealment. It cannot therefore, be said
that the revised return was filed after detection of concealment and was not
voluntary. The term "detection" itself implies the Assessing Officer had reached a
conclusion but the query raised by the Assessing Officer was only first step in
detection of concealment. If the assessee voluntarily revised the return, it could
not be said that it does not fulfill requirements of section 139(5) of the Act." The
facts of the present case are also similar to the facts of the aforesaid referred to
case.
Zenom Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) on 9 May, 2023
6. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.
AO erred in invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Act. The
alleged sum of Rs. 4 lakh has been received against sale of
investments which are duly appearing in the balance sheet and are
brought forward from last year. Further, reliance was placed on
the decision of Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s.
Reliance Corporation vs. ITO in ITA No. 1069 to 1071/MUM/2017
order dated 12.04.2017.
1