Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs Chand Kanwarji, Alwar on 26 July, 1971

We have had occasion to notice the views expressed by the Supreme Court and the different High Courts on this point in our judgment in Delhi Glass Works (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax ., (1971) 51 I.T.R. 95. Some more decisions have been brought to our notice by Shri G. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the Revenue, which indicate that the divergence has not yet been reconciled. But it is really not necessary for the purpose of this case to traverse the entire ground of what constitutes information within the meaning of section 147(b) of the New Act. because the question before us lies with a narrow compass. It is admitted that all the relevant facts regarding the two questions, namely. interest income and salary paid to the assessed's daughter-in-law, were available before the Income-tax Officer at the time of the original assessment and that it was only on a consideration of these facts that the Income-tax Officer had come to the conclusion that the interest income was in the nature of earned income and also that the salary paid by the assessed to her daughter-in-law was in the nature of allow- able expenditure. The Income-tax Officer, however, on a considera- tion of the same facts subsequently, came to a different conclusion. In a way, this may amount to a change of opinion on the part of the Income-tax Officer. Does such a change of opinion under the circum- stances of this case entitle the Income-tax Officer to reopen the original assessments under section 147(b) of the New Act? There can be no doubt that even a change of opinion under certain circumstances would entitle the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessments, under section 147(b) of the New Act. Change of opinion based on instruc- tion or knowledge obtained by the Income-tax Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessments regarding the correct posi- tion of law would entitle the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assess- ment under section 147(b) of the New Act. Such instruction or knowledge may also be regarding the correct position of facts or particulars.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Phalwant Singh vs Jai Narain on 11 July, 1980

The post office is the agent of the remitter but Where creditor has by express or implied agreement or request agreed to receive payment through post, the post office is also the agent of the creditor, vide Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., , and Azamzahi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, . But, unless otherwise agreed in advance, or implied by subsequent conduct, the landlord is not bound to accept any other mode of payment, be it a cheque or a demand draft.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Plethico Pharmaceutical Ltd., Indore vs Assessee on 1 November, 2011

The assessee strongly draws support from the decision from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bharti Televenture Limited; 331 ITR 502 wherein various cases including S.A. Builders Limited; 288 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Dalmia Cement; 254 ITR 377 (Del), Falton Sugar Works Ltd. vs. CIT; 215 ITR 582 (Bom), etc. were considered. The Hon'ble Court held as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1