Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.66 seconds)
Documents citing Assam Consolidated Tea Estates Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, "A" Ward And Ors. on 10 September, 1969

Machino Techno Sales Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 30 November, 1994

14. The assessees contention that notice under S. 148 issued prior to 31st March, 1990 cannot take away the right of the assessee to file the return under S. 139(4) is also not tenable as the Calcutta High Court in the case of Assam Consolidate Tea Estates Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) has laid down that notice under S. 148 cannot be issued if a valid return has already been filed within the period fixed and specified under S. 139(4) of the Act. In the instant case no return was furnished before the issuance of notice under S. 148. Moreover, there is no provision in the Act to invalidate the notice under S. 148 by furnishing of return after issue of such notice. Looking from all the angles we come to the conclusion that notice under S. 148 issued by the Assessing Officer is valid in all respects.
Calcutta High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Machino Techno Sales Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 August, 2000

In the case of Assam Consolidated Tea Estates Ltd. v. ITO , the controversy before this court was when the assessee has filed the return for the assessment year 1957-58, can the Income-tax Officer issue the notice under section? This court has taken the decision that the Income-tax Officer cannot issue the notice under Section 148, ignoring the return filed for the assessment year 1957-58. In the case in hand no return has been filed before notice under Section 148. Therefore, the decision has no application.
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Assam Consolidated Tea Estates Ltd. on 24 September, 1986

28. The learned advocate for the assessee also cited Blue Star Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 283 (Bom); Assam Consolidated Tea Estates Ltd. v. ITO ; Carborandum Co. v. CIT ; VDO Tachometer Werke v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 804 (Kar) and CIT v. Fried Krupp Industries [1981] 128 ITR 27 (Mad). The said decisions do not lay down any new or further principles and need not, therefore, be considered.
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Meteor Satellite Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 21 June, 1979

15. Mr. Desai drew our attention to three decisions which, according to him, had a bearing on this question before us. The first is the decision in Assam Consolidated Tea Estates Ltd. v. ITO [1971] 81 ITR 699, being the decision of a single judge of the Calcutta High Court. The learned single judge in that case has dealt with the provisions of s. 9(1) of the I.T. Act, and the learned single judge, K. L. Roy J. has held that s. 9 was a complicated provision and serious question as to the scope and effect of the provision could not be decided in an application under art. 226 of the Constitution. This decision of the learned judge of the Calcutta High Court has no bearing on the facts before us because it is clear on a plain reading of s. 9(1)(vi) and the proviso that the facts are covered by the plain language of the section and this particular income of the two instalments is royalty, but royalty which is covered by the proviso to clause (vi) cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1