Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Jamnadas Madhavji And Co. And Another vs J.B. Panchal, Income-Tax Officer And ... on 31 March, 1986

Damodar H. Shah vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 June, 2000

In the decision in Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. v. J. B. Panchal, ITO (supra) summons for production of documents and furnishing information was issued when no proceedings were pending, and it is in that context it was held that there were no proceedings pending and, therefore, summons was liable to be quashed. That decision cannot have any bearing on the type of enquiry that was being made from the assessee to find out whether he had filed the returns or not. The assessing officer, in any view of the matter, had at the relevant time reason to believe that the returns were not filed and, therefore, issuance of the notice under section 147 cannot be said to have been done without jurisdiction. The assessee can even now answer these notices and point out that the return were filed and that there was no escapement of income chargeable to tax.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Young Indian, New Delhi vs Addl. Cit (Inv.), New Delhi on 30 August, 2018

26. So far as the various decisions relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee are concerned, the same in our opinion are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. So far as the decision in the case of Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. (supra) is concerned, the issue was where assessment proceedings have been concluded or have become time-barred in respect of relevant assessment years and thus no proceedings are pending, whether summons u/s 131(1) can be issued against the assessee by concerned officers mentioned in section 131(1) of the I.T. Act. Here issue is different i.e. levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(c) for non-compliance of the provisions of section 131A. Therefore, this decision is not applicable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Damodar H. Shah vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 June, 2000

In the decision in Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. vs. J. B. Panchal, ITO (supra) summons for production of documents and furnishing information was issued when no proceedings were pending, and it is in that context it was held that there were no proceedings pending and, therefore, summons was liable to be quashed. That decision cannot have any bearing on the type of enquiry that was being made from the assessee to find out whether he had filed the returns or not. The AO, in any view of the matter, had at the relevant time reason to believe that the returns were not filed and therefore, issuance of the notice under s. 147 cannot be said to have been done without jurisdiction. The assessee can even now answer these notices and point out that the return were filed and that there was no escapement of income chargeable to tax.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A R Dave - Full Document

Cambrian Hall Educational Trust vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 November, 2004

(iii) Decision of Bombay High Court in the matter of Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. v. J.B. Panchal, ITO (1986) 162 ITR 331 (Bom) in which it was held that no proceeding was pending when ITO issued summonss under Section 131(1) of the IT Act, therefore, summons was liable to be quashed. In this case the facts were that assessment for asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 completed and assessment for 1974-75 became time-barred. The ITO issued summonss to the assessee to furnish information and produce documents and account books in respect of these years. Therefore, summons under Section 131 was quashed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 33 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Das'S Friends Builders (P) Ltd . vs Dy. Cit on 27 March, 2002

"Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P6 order issued by the DDI, Investigation, Trivandrum, directing valuation of the petitioner's properties. According to the petitioner, this order was passed under section 131(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, which would not enable the first respondent to order a valuation. Counsel for respondents submitted that under section 131(1)(d) read with section 131(1A) the first respondent has got the power to call for a valuation when he takes up investigation. I have gone through the said provision, especially section 131(1A). Counsel for the department submitted that section 131(1)(d) was misquoted and in any view the first respondent has got jurisdiction under section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act to get a valuation report. Reference was also made to the decision in Jamnadas Madhaiji & Co. v. ITO (1986) 162 ITR 331 (Bom) : TC 60R. 97. I am of the view it is only for the purpose of investigation first respondent called for a valuation report from the 2nd respondent. I do not find any illegality committed by the officer so as to interfere with the direction."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 37 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

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

In this connection, he relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. v. J. B. Panchal, ITO [1986] 162 ITR 331/27 Taxman 157 and of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dwijendra Lal Brahmachari v. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. [1978] 112 ITR 568. It was further submitted by him that once the original reference is invalid, then revision of such report would also be invalid. According to him, all the documents relating to investment in this project upto 31-3-1993 were available with the Income-tax Department since they were seized in the course of search. Whatever the material was available with the assessee was duly shown to the DVO. Thus, there was no fresh material with the Assessing Officer for asking the DVO to make fresh report. Further, the assessee cannot be held responsible for the relevant material in the possession of the Assessing Officer was not disclosed to DVO.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next