Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 193 (0.99 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gupta Cables Pvt. Ltd. on 26 April, 1993

It is precisely the reason why the Supreme Court in Madnani Engineering Works Ltd's case [1979] 118 ITR 1, held that the assessee is under no obligation to make a confession. Where from the facts furnished by the assessee, a proper inference could have been arrived at as to what the assessee is supposed to confess, no allegation of non-disclosure can be fastened on the assessee.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer, Special Civil No. ... vs Dwarka Das & Brothers on 5 February, 1981

8. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that, for the purpose of the case before us, it is not necessary to express any opinion as to whether the decision of the Calcutta High Court and Madras High Court relied upon by the appellants are consistent with the principles laid don by the Supreme Court or whether they would need any reconsideration, particularly in the light of the later decision of the Supreme Court in ITO v. Madnani Engg. Works Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 1.

M/S Opg Metals & Finsec Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. on 30 August, 2013

In our recent decision in Wel Intertrade Private Ltd. (supra) we had agreed with the view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singhania (supra) that, in the absence of an allegation in the reasons recorded that the escapement of income had occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, any action taken by the Assessing officer under Section 147 beyond the four year period would be wholly without jurisdiction. Reiterating our view- point, we hold that the notice dated 29.03.2004 under Section 148 based on the recorded reasons as supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated 02.03.2005 are without jurisdiction as no action under Section 147 could be taken beyond the four year period in the circumstances narrated above."
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 24 - S Khanna - Full Document

Usha Beltron Ltd. And Anr. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 26 August, 1999

The decision in ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 1 (SC) will also not come to the rescue of the petitioner, inasmuch as in that case, notice was issued after the lapse of four years. Further, the affidavit filed in the writ proceeding, the Income-tax Officer did not disclose the fact which had weighed with him in coming to the conclusion that the income of the respondent had escaped assessment by reason of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts only on the ground that such failure will cause prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. In this case, as stated above, apart from disclosing the material facts in the affidavit, the entire investigation report including the various annexures appended thereto have been produced with a copy to the other side, which clearly go to indicate that the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the petitioner-assessee to disclose the true and full facts, which resulted in underassessment.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 26 - A K Sinha - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax €“ Ii vs M/S Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. ... on 22 September, 2015

23. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court in Burlop Dealers Ltd. (supra) and ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. (supra) were noticed by this Court in M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. (supra). The Court has held that once the Assessee had disclosed all facts which have been examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings, it would not be open for the AO to allege that the Assessee had not truly and fully disclosed all material facts.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 60 - V Bakhru - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next