Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 230 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Mcmillan & Co on 16 October, 1957

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. on 12 March, 1970

19. Now, in our case the Income-tax Officer had the power to proceed under the first proviso of the section 10 (5) (a). He, however, did not exercise it. It is a case of non-exercise of power. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. McMillan and Co. shows that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has the power to interfere to correct non-exercise of a power by the Income-tax Officer, although the latter has such power. If the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is of the opinion that the record and the facts and circumstances of a case are such as would require him to exercise the power, as was in fact done by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the above case before the Supreme Court; but if he feels that something more is required to be done before he can exercise the power which the Income-tax Officer had, but did not exercise, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer and direct him to proceed further in the matter according to law. As thins is the extent of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as revealed by the above judgment of the Supreme Court, we reject the third point made by Mr. Dastur. Its acceptance would curtail the ambit of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as shown in the above judgment of the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, the third point of Mr. Dastur cannot even arise as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner does, on the basis of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, have the power to make the order which he made and the basis of Mr. Dastur's argument that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot do indirectly what he could not do directly is knocked out as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did have such power.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri. E. D. Benny on 10 October, 2014

19. Learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. McMillan & Co. [1958] 33 ITR 182 to support his contention that when documents are produced before the First Appellate Authority, the matter should have been remanded to the Assessing Officer. In our view, this judgment does not support the proposition canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel. This judgment was rendered by the Apex Court in the I.T.A.No.84 of 2015 & connected cases : 18 : background of the Income Tax Act,1922 and Income Tax Rules, 1922. The facts of this case show that assessment was completed and appeal was filed by the assessee. The Appellate Authority, after issuing notice to the assessee, fixed the income of the assessee enhancing the tax liability, presumably relying on the proviso to Section 13 of the Act and Rule 33 of the Rules. This was confirmed by the Tribunal and the High Court. In the judgment, while interpreting the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, the Apex Court has highlighted the requirement of satisfaction by the Income Tax Officer. In our view, that finding of the Apex Court does not suggest that in every case where additional materials are produced before the First Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority is bound to remit the case to the Income Tax Officer for fresh consideration. Therefore, this judgment does not support the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - A Dominic - Full Document

Raghubar Dayal Ram Kishan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 22 August, 1966

In Commissioner of Income-tax v. McMillan & Co., the Supreme Court held that it was open to the Tribunal it determine whether the proviso to section 13 applied even though the language of the proviso appeared to indicate that it was the Income-tax Officer who had to form the opinion about the applicability of the proviso. It is important to remember that the question of applying the proviso to section 13 arises when the assessment proceeding has commenced, and during the course of that proceeding. It is applied for the purpose of determining the true income, profits or gains, and in the course of the exercise of jurisdiction already commenced. It is not applied for the purpose of determining whether or not the jurisdiction to assess can be invoked at all. The question whether the proviso to section 13 should be applied is a matter falling for objective consideration.
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs Gurjargravures Pvt. Ltd. on 14 September, 1971

It is true that no claim for exemption having been made by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer, there was no decision of the Income-tax Officer, express or implied, holding that a certain portion of profit of the assessee was not exempt from tax under section 84. But, in order that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be entitled to interfere in appeal on a particular point, it is not necessary that there should be a decision on the point given by the Income-tax Officer. It is enough if the particular item of income in relation to which the point is sought to be raised has come in for consideration by the Income-tax Officer and has been subjected by him to the process of assessment. If we may refer once again to the observations from the judgment of Chagla C.J. in Narrondas Manordass v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which observations were quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. McMillan and Co., it is clear that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can revise not only "the various decisions given by the Income-tax Officer in the course of assessment" but also "the various incomes or deductions which came in for consideration of the Income-tax Officer". The portion of profit exempt from tax under section 84 was clearly subjected to the process of assessment by the Income-tax Officer and it was, therefore, open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the appeal preferred by the assessee, to examine whether the assessment of this portion of the profit to tax was right or wrong, whether it was rightly brought to tax, and that would bring in consideration of the question whether it was exempt from tax under section 84. It is, therefore, not possible to say that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no power to consider whether a portion of the profit of the assessee was exempt from tax under section 84 on the ground that no such claim had been put forward by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer at the time of the assessment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Late Begum Noor Banu Alladin And Anr. on 21 April, 1993

In CIT v. McMillan and Co. , the Supreme Court, after citing approval the observations of Chagla C. J. in Narrondas Manordass v. CIT , pointed out (at page 193) that the language of section 31 was wide enough to enable the Appellate Assistant Commissioner "to correct the Income-tax Officer not only with regard to a matter which has been raised by the assessee but also with regard to a matter which has been considered by the Income-tax Officer and determined in the course of assessment". In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the question whether the proviso to section 13 which conferred the power on the Income-tax Officer to reject the method of account adopted by the assessee and to compute the income and profits in such manner as he may determine. The Supreme Court held that it is open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in exercise of his appellate power to revise the determination made by the Income-tax Officer under the said proviso and exercise the power which the Income-tax Officer could exercise.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 74 - Cited by 39 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Nico Extrusions Limited,Mumbai vs Dcit, Circle 2(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai on 18 March, 2026

9.1 The Ld. CIT(A), is of view that an Assessee cannot maintain a dual-track track valuation system system--one one for books and another for tax--as as it may lead to an artificial reduction of taxable income. Reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in CIT vs. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Ltd. and CIT vs. McMillan & Co.,, asserting that accounting consistency is paramount to prevent tax evasion.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next