Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 71 (1.27 seconds)
Documents citing Hope Textiles Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 October, 1993

Shri Chaitanya Kochar, Hinganghat vs I.T.O., Wardha on 28 April, 2022

Thus in the context it only mean that the assessee will not object to the territorial jurisdiction of I.T.O. Wardha to make assessment, obviously according to law. It was submitted that even the court cannot give direction to the authority under the Act to ignore the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Reliance is placed by ld.AR on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hope Textile Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1994) 205 I.T.R. P.508. In the said case for A.Y.1971-72 assessee's return declaring loss was accepted by order dt.27.03.1974. On 21.02.1976 reassessment notice was issued u/s.148. In pursuance thereof assessee filed return disclosing further loss. No assessment was made till Sept.1981. Appellant therefore filed a Writ of Mandamus in High Court for directing the Income Tax Officer to pass an order in pursuance of notice.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Inys Medical Research Society, ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Bangalore on 5 October, 2001

6. Learned Advocate in reply mentioned that the Karnataka High Court has nowhere in its judgment has mentioned that Section 28 gives infinit time limit; that no Court can direct any authority to go outside the limitation. He relied upon the decision in the case of Hope Textiles Ltd. vs. UOI, 1994 (205) ITR 508 wherein it was mentioned that a High Court cannot give direction to the authority under the Act to ignore the period of limitation prescribed in the Act.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sri. Edurkala Ishwara Bhat vs Sri. Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji on 29 September, 2022

In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in B.N.NAGARAJAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF 9 (2012) 4 SCC 578 10 1995 SUPP (3) SCC 199 23 MYSORE AND OTHERS12, ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. S.K.DUBEY AND ANOTHER13, HOPE TEXTILES LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 14 and VIVEK KRISHNA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS INDIA15.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - A Aradhe - Full Document

M/S Citi Plaza, Jalandhar vs Income Tax Officer , Ward 3(1), ... on 13 September, 2023

"Reassessment under s. 147(a)--Limitation--Scope and applicability of s. 153(3)(ii)--A finding' for purposes of s. 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary, and not incidental, for the disposal of the particular case, in respect of particular assessee and in relation to the particular assessment year and a "direction" for that purpose must be an express direction for the disposal of the case which the authority is empowered to give while deciding the case-- AAC having held that the cost of construction of the property having been debited to the co- owners, the firm was not the owner of the property and the excess over disclosed cost of construction could not be added in the assessment of the firm; and further that the ITO I.T.A. No. 356/Asr/2017 11 Assessment Year: 2006-07 "is free to take action" against the co-owners, there was neither a "finding" against co-owners nor a "direction" to assess the co-owners within the meaning of s. 153(3)(ii) and the provision did not apply. Hon'ble Apex Court in Hope Textile vs. UOI (1994) 205 ITR 508(SC)"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hari Singh And Associates vs Income Tax Officer on 14 September, 2007

In support of this proposition, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hope Textiles Ltd. and Anr v. Union of India and Ors. . In that case the assessee filed return for asst. yr. 1971-72 on the basis of which an order of assessment was made on 27th March, 1974. On 21st Feb., 1976, a notice under Section 148 was issued in pursuance to which the assessee filed return on 27th March, 1976. No order was passed till September 1981 in the reassessment proceedings. The assessee approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of writ petition for issuance of mandamus to the ITO to pass order in pursuance to aforesaid notice. The writ petition was dismissed by observing that no mandamus can be issued compelling the ITO to make an order of assessment beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 143(2). We find that the facts of this case are entirely different from those under review. Primarily, the AO had not passed an order within the limitation period in that case, whereas in our case, the AO had rightly passed the order and the said time-limit is not disputed. The grievance now sought to be addressed is about the irregularity, which occurred during the course of passing of the order. Secondly, that was a case in which the petition was filed for issuance of notice by the ITO to pass order in pursuance of notice under Section 148, whereas in our case, there is no such direction from the Hon'ble High Court for permitting or prohibiting the AO from passing such order. Thus, the ratio laid down in the said decision is not applicable. If we go by the contention of the learned Authorised Representative that the AO cannot now issue notice under Section 143(2), it would create an anomaly inasmuch as the AOs would invariably be debarred from carrying out the directions of the appellate authorities by which the assessments are set aside with a direction to the AO for making them fresh or for deciding particular issue de novo. In such a situation, the hands of the AO would be tied down, which, in our considered opinion, is a misreading of the provisions of Section 143(2). What is meant by the said time-limit under the proviso is that a valid assessment order should be passed initially by the AO within the prescribed time. It does not apply to the giving effect to directions given by the appellate authorities for the removal of procedural irregularities in the assessment order already passed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Mishra vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 20 December, 2005

24. We have already held that the order passed by the AO is barred by limitation. We cannot direct the AO to make a fresh assessment because that would tantamount to extending the limitation for which we are not competent. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hope Textiles Ltd. v. Union of India .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next