Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 272 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Iv & ... on 3 November, 2008

Viniyas Finance & Investment Pvt. ... vs Department Of Income Tax

10.1 In the case before us in the reasons the assessing officer has not recorded satisfaction that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. Therefore, the assessee's case is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Wel Inter Trade P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) and Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT (supra). We, therefore, hold that reopening of assessment in 7 I. T. A. No. 4652 (Del) of 2009 A N D C. O. No. 29 (Del) of 2010.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Cairn Energy India Pty.Limited vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax on 29 October, 2011

Following the decisions in the cases of Haryana Acrylic Mfg.Co. Vs CIT reported in (2009) 308 ITR 38, in the case of Duli Chand Signhania Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 269 ITR 192 (P&H), in an unreported decision in W.P.No.7789 of 2010 dated 31 May 2011 relied upon by the assessee, the Delhi High Court held that when the assessee had disclosed fully and truly all material facts for its assessment, no action could be taken under Section 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years indicated therein. I agree that the submission of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the absence of any reasons disclosed to link the materials to the formation of belief that there is an escapement of income, the proceedings taken, necessarily, has to be quashed by this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 3 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Anjan Kumar Naha, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 44(1), Kolkata , Kolkata on 15 May, 2019

24. Mr. Hossain sought to distinguish the decision in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) on the ground that the Assessee in that case had filed its return which was scrutinized and an order was ITA No.2379-2381/Kol/2017 A.Ys. 09-10 to 11-12 Anjan Kr. Naha Vs. ITO, Wd-44(1), Kol. Page 11 passed in the first instance under Section 143(3) of the Act whereas in the present case the Assessee has not filed return at all. In the considered view of this Court, this is not a distinguishing factor. The Court is unable to discern any reason why the AO failed to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the Assessee. It is not in dispute that the assessee had made a request in writing for the reasons in respect of each of the AY s in question. Merely because the Assessee did not repeat the request cannot mean that the Assessee waived its right to be provided the reasons. The proviso to Section 292 BB (I) of the Act makes it clear that there is no estoppel against an Assessee on account of participating in the proceedings as long as it has raised an objection in writing regarding the failure by the AO to follow the prescribed procedure.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Niko Resources Ltd.,, Baroda vs Assessee on 22 September, 2011

1.5 The decision of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. (supra) has been followed in the case of Shri Balwant Wadhwa v. ITO (I.T.A. 20 ITA No.93/Ahd/2007 Asst. Year 1998-99 No. 4806/Del/10) (Del) whcrein the facts of above case are identical to that of the appellant. In that case, the reassessment notice was served on the assesses on 28.03.2008. three days prior to the expiry of period of limitation of 6 years and the reasons were supplied only on 15.05,2008 i.e five weeks after expiry of period of limitation of notice. The Delhi Tribunal quashed the reopening proceedings and held that if the Assessing Officer fails to issue reasons along with notice lien such notice is invalid in law. In that case, the Tribunal has held as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 vs Jagat Talkies Distributors on 29 August, 2017

24. Mr. Hossain sought to distinguish the decision in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) on the ground that the Assessee in that case had filed its return which was scrutinized and an order was passed in the first instance under Section 143 (3) of the Act whereas in the present case the Assessee has not filed return at all. In the considered view of this Court, this is not a distinguishing factor. The Court is unable to discern any reason why the AO failed to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the Assessee. It is not in dispute that the Assessee had made a request in writing for the reasons in respect of each of the AYs in question. Merely because the Assessee did not repeat the request cannot mean that the Assessee waived its right to be provided the reasons. The proviso to Section 292 BB (1) of the Act makes it clear that there is no estoppel against an Assessee on account of participating in the proceedings as long as it has raised an objection in writing regarding the failure by the AO to follow the prescribed procedure.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Nvidia Graphics Private ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 23 October, 2024

In view of this settled position of law and respectfully following the line of decision in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Delhi) by the higher forum referred to in the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Winico Seedlings (supra), we find it difficult to sustain the validity of the reopening of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and consequently quash the same.'"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Principal Commissioner Of Income vs Badal Prakash Jindal on 2 March, 2023

In view of this settled position of law and respectfully following the line of decision in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co v. Commissioner of Income Tax 308 ITR 38 [Delhi] by the higher forum referred to in the decision of the coordinate Page 10 of 11 Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Wimco Seedlings (supra), we find it difficult to sustain the validity of the reopening of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and consequently quash the same."
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - M S Raman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next