Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (1.47 seconds)
Documents citing Lachman Chaturbhuj Java vs R.G. Nitsure And Others on 16 January, 1981

Karnataka Golf Association vs The Director Of Income-Tax (Exe.) on 31 July, 2003

Otherwise, the executives who are supposed to carry on the intentions of the Legislature will only be thriving by their own lapses and latches. If the assessee files a return and the Department does not pass an order, the return of income is deemed to have been accepted. While dealing with the provisions of Section 139, where assessee applied for extension of time and the officer did not reply, Several courts have taken a view that the time as prayed for by the assessee is deemed to have been granted and the assessee was justified in assuming that his application has been granted by the officer. Reference may be made, among other decisions to Lachman Bhaturbhuj Java v. R.G. Nitsure and Ors. (132 ITR 631 (Bom), Harmanjit Trust v. CIT (148 ITR 214) (P & H) and CIT v. Surinder Kumar Pramod Kumar and Ors. (193 ITR 71) (P & H). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed Special Leave Petition by the Department against the judgment in the case of Surinder Kumar Pramod Kumar and Ors. Reported in (1993) 204 ITR (St.) 9). Applying these principles and in the interests of justice, we observe that the assessee had done what is expected of him under the law i.e. to seek registration by making an application. The Department should have acted vigilantly in refusing to register, if it is so satisfied, within the period of limitation prescribed by the provisions of Section 12AA(2) of the Act. Having not done, it loses the benefit of legally refusing to grant registration. The department, by its latches cannot be said to have taken the same position by not acting within the time limit prescribed. We, therefore, grant registration to the assessee on the basis of its application dated 23-01-1998 and to that extent, the assessee should be taken to have satisfied the conditions as to registration of the trust/institution etc., required Under Section 12A of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to proceed as if registration has been granted by the DIT(Ex.) under Section 12A of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhagwad Swarup Shri Shri Devraha Baba ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 August, 2007

In addition, Dr. Gupta drew our attention to analogous situations arising under Section 139, under which it has been held that if the application for extension of time to file the return has not been disposed of and no order refusing the time is intimated to the assessee it must be deemed that the extension of time as applied for has been allowed : Lachman Chaturbhuj Java v. R.G. Nitsure and Ors. , Harmanjit Trust v. CIT , CIT v. Surinder Kumar Parmod Kumar and Ors. , CIT v. Rohit Organics (P) Ltd. (2006) 202 CTR (All) 512 and CIT v. Ajanta Electricals .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 27 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Forest Development Corpn. Of Meghalaya ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 4 April, 1991

7. On the facts, he held that the assessee had sought for extension of time by filing Form No. 6 which the assessing officer had not disposed of and, therefore, it could be presumed that the assessing officer had already granted time to the assessee as applied for till 30-9-1987, following the decision in the case olLachman Chaturbhuj Java v. R.G. Nitsure [1981] 132 ITR 631 (Bom.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Janab S.K. Yusuff Sheriff vs Seventh Income-Tax Officer on 23 February, 1983

It cannot thus be said that the assessee has not been put on guard of the intention of the ITO so as to enable him to make arrangements and meet the consequence of the refusal of extension of time asked for and the issue of notice under Section 148 as pointed out by the Bombay High Court in the case of Lachman Chaturbhuj Java (supra). There was thus enough notice to the assessee to meet the consequences arising out of the issue of notice under Section 148. I am, therefore, unable to accept the plea that the time asked for under Section 139(1) was deemed to have been granted and, therefore, the return filed by the assessee is a return in discharge of the obligation of the assessee under Section 139(1) but within the time allowed under Section 139(4). Once the return is held to be a return filed not under Section 139(1) or 139(4) but only in response to the notice issued under Section 148, the time-limit available to complete the assessment is cot one year as provided for in Section 153(1)(c) but four years as provided for in Sub-section (2) of Section 153.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ahmed Hassan And Co. vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 October, 1992

In the case of Lachman Chaturbhuj Java v. R.G. Nitsure [1981] 132 ITR 631 the Bombay High Court held that it would not be unreasonable to expect an assessee who engages a chartered accountant to assist him in tax matters to be advised and guided by him and if the assessee acts under the advice and guidance of the chartered accountant and does not file a return, it cannot be said that the failure to furnish his return within the prescribed time is without reasonable cause.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Cliftons Pearson Export & Agencies Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 13 August, 1996

(i) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java's case (supra) - "that for the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee had applied for an extension of time for filing returns till December 1970. The department had vouchsafed no reply. The assessee was justified in assuming that silence on the part of the department was content and that time was extended till December 1970 to file the returns."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Swastik Sanitary Works Ltd. on 27 April, 2006

In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noticed the principles laid down in the cases of (i) CIT v. Gordhanbhai Jethabhai and (ii) Lachman Chaturbhuj Java v. R.G. Nitsure and held that as the assessee had filed Form No. 6 seeking extension of time to file the return, it was the duty of the Income-tax Officer to dispose of the same, and as the Department had chosen not to reply to the assessee's application within time, the assessee was justified in proceeding on the footing that the time prayed for was extended by the Department. In view of the said conclusion, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed that the business loss be allowed to be carried forward. In appeal by the Income-tax Officer, Ahmedabad, the Tribunal has confirmed the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which has given rise to the instant reference.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - J M Panchal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next