Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Citibank N.A. vs S.K. Ojha And Ors. on 22 February, 2002

Markanda Vanaspati Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 1 December, 2004

The Bombay High Court in Citibank N.A. v. S.K. Ojha and Ors. (supra), while discussing the jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, noticed that mere production of evidence before the ITO is not enough. There may be omission or failure to make a true and full disclosure. If some material for the assessment lay embedded in the evidence which the Revenue could have uncovered but did not, then it is the duty of the assessee to bring it to the notice of the assessing authority. If there are some primary facts from which a reasonable belief could be formed that there was some non-disclosure or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the ITO has jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Khazana Holdings (P) Ltd. vs Asst. Cit on 7 June, 2007

4. However, the validity of reassessment proceedings was challenged before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by raising two contentions namely - (i) since all the facts relating to purchase and sale of shares/debentures were available from the audited accounts, the reassessment proceedings could not be initiated in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Citibank N.A. v. S.K. Ojha and (ii) reassessment proceedings could not be initiated on mere change of opinion in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd v. Gajanand Meena, Dy. CIT .The learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the submissions of assessee and upheld the action of the assessing officer by observing as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arun Kumar Maheshwari And Ors. vs Income Tax Officer And Ors. on 3 December, 2004

37. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid case to the facts of the present case, we find that in the return filed under the IT Act, none of the petitioners has disclosed the amount of gift received by them nor there had been any scrutiny by the ITO. The assessments have been made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and as already mentioned earlier, these assessments are to be made within the framework of the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act itself. Under the aforesaid provision, the ITO neither calls upon the assessee to appear personally nor for production of any document. The assessment is made on the basis of return after making certain adjustments. There is no scrutiny at all. The petitioners cannot take advantage of the scrutiny done by the WTO in the proceedings under the WT Act, regarding these gifts. The officer may be the same but the proceedings are entirely different and, therefore, if the conditions mentioned in Section 147 of the Act are fulfilled, the jurisdiction can be validly exercised in such a case. From the material and records which were before the ITO, he had information that each of the petitioners had disclosed in their WT return to have received huge amount of gifts running into several lakhs of rupees which had not been disclosed by them in their IT returns. The genuineness of the gifts, the capacity of the donors, the necessity of making gifts by strangers vis-a-vis Sections 69 and 69A of the Act do constitute relevant material for forming the reasonable belief that the income has escaped assessment to tax. There is no question of improving upon the reasons recorded by the ITO by means of an affidavit. In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the ITO had material before him to form a reasonable belief that the income had escaped assessment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. on 22 August, 2007

In the case of CITIBANK N.A. (supra) the Bombay High Court was considering a case where the Bank had earned an amount of Rs. 40,23,45,387/- over and above the amount paid to its customers on account of an oral agreement under portfolio management scheme of the Bank. The agreement stipulated payment of a fix return @ 18% interest on the fund invested by the customer in the Bank. The Bank did not disclose the amount actually earned on such transaction in its return of income. On these facts, the Bombay High Court has held that the Bank had failed to disclose the primary facts justifying the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - R K Agrawal - Full Document
1