Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing M.C. Khunnah vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 March, 1979

Smt. Krishna Roy , Burdwan vs Acit, Circle - 2, Burdwan , Burdwan on 23 January, 2019

'A reading of the sub-section shows that the Wealth-tax Officer has no option but to proceed to complete the assessment inconformity with the assessment of the Valuation Officer in so far as the valuation of the asset in question is concerned. This is also the view taken by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. Khunnah v. Union of India [1979] 118 ITR 414 (All' 'In view of the above discussions and by considering the totality of the facts an circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that generally, when the Assessing Officer has obtained the DVO report then the same is binding. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is hereby upheld with the reasons mentioned therein' Thus, the appellant's contention in the instant case, that the DVO's report is not the last word in the matter valuation, even though appear fancied as it may seem, in the absence of any defects or anomalies therein, the same, cannot be ignored. In the present case, no such defect has been detected and therefore, the AO was bound to accept the same. in view of the discussions mentioned above, in the context of the facts and circumstances, the undersigned does not deem it fit to interfere with the order passed by the AO and the same is confirmed. Appellant's grounds, therefore, fail."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Dr. H.R. Virmani on 12 January, 2005

It was also submitted during the assessment proceedings after it was set aside by the CIT(A) (that) the DVO had filed a report dt. 6th June, 1997, wherein he had clearly admitted the fact that the entire property was in possession of the tenants and no part of the property was in possession of the assessee. According to him, there was no power for the CWT(A) to have made a reference to the DVO in the course of the appellate proceedings, especially when a report of the DVO was already available on record. It was, therefore, submitted that the second report of the DVO ought to be ignored. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M.C. Khunnah v. Union of India and Ors. , wherein it has been held that there was no power to the WTO to make a second reference to the Valuation Officer.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Golani Bros. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 September, 1999

In support of his submissions, the ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M. C. Khunnah v. Union of India [1979] 118 ITR 414/[1980] 3 Taxman 288. In view of these submissions, it was prayed by him that these reports should be ignored and the unaccounted investment should be restricted to the amount disclosed by the assessee in the course of search.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 July, 1993

16. It is further urged that the refusal of the DVO to value the property on the ground of lack of opportunity of inspection is not valid. It is urged that the DVO did not have any power to inspect the asset because Section 38A of the Wealth-tax Act has not been incorporated in Section 55A of the Income-tax Act. It is the contention made on behalf of the assessee that the DVO himself should have estimated the value of the asset instead of declining to do so. Reference was made to the case of M.C. Khunnah v. Union of India for the proposition that only the DVO has the jurisdiction to value the assets once the reference is made under Section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act or Section 55A of the Income-tax Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Bharti Jayesh Sangani , Mumbai vs Assessee on 22 October, 2003

14. It is clearly borne out from this Circular that the valuation made by the Valuation Officer is binding on the Wealth-tax Officer who will make the assessment in conformity with the said valuation. Similar view has been taken by several courts including the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in M.C.Khunnah Vs. Union of India and Others [(1979) 118 ITR 414 (All.)] which had the occasion to deal with sub-section (6) of section 16A in the following words:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr Vivek Omprakash Abrol,Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 17 March, 2025

"A reading of the sub-section sub shows that the Wealth-tax tax Officer has no option but to proceed to complete the assessment in conformity with the assessment of the Valuation Officer in so far as the valuation of the asset in question is concerned. This is also als the view taken by a Division Bench of this court in M. C. Khunnah v. Union of India [1979] 118 ITR 414 (All)."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1