Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (7.51 seconds)
Documents citing Mandal Ginning And Pressing Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Keshavlal ... on 28 July, 1972

H.H. Maharaja Martand Singh Ju Deo vs Commissioner Of Expenditure-Tax on 8 December, 1981

19. Learned counsel for the Revenue also referred to two Madras decisions CIT v. Vellingiri Gounder [1953] 24 ITR 166 and Adaikkappa Chettiar v. CIT [1970] 78 ITR 285 which are relief on in Mandal Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 332 (Guj) as taking the same view, although without giving detailed reasons. No separate discussion of these Madras cases is necessary since they also relate to Section 30(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, under which an appeal was held to be not maintainable against a rectification order made under Section 35(1) of that Act. The reasons given by us for distinguishing the Gujarat decision in [1973] 90 ITR 332, equally apply to the Madras decisions.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - J S Verma - Full Document

Ahmedabad Sarangpur Mills Company Ltd. vs A.S. Manohar, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 24 September, 1974

10. The learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, finally urged that, in view of the decision in Mandal Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd.'s case, the limitation should commence to run from the date of the order of rectification because the rectification proceedings are in the nature of assessment proceedings and the order made therein is an assessment order. We are afraid we cannot accept this submission of the learned counsel for the revenue as, in our opinion, as stated above, the mere fact of rectification in any assessment order cannot enlarge the period of limitation as has been sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the respondent-revenue. Assuming that there are two assessments which are contemplated, one under section 23 and another under section 35, even then, the period of limitation for rectifying the respective order should be four years from the date of the relevant order. Merely because an assessment order is rectified, it cannot enlarge the period of limitation. This conclusion which we have reached on the plain reading of section 35 is borne out when we compare the language of sub-section (5) of section 35 where the legislature has expressed itself appropriately when it wanted to give an enlarged period of limitation by saying that the limitation of four years referred to in sub-section (1) would be computed from the date of the final order. The legislature would have certainly expressed itself in similar terms, if the intention had been to give an enlarged period of limitation in other cases. In that view of the matter, therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the commencing period of limitation in this case should be considered to be from 26th December, 1962, when the order of assessment was made in respect of the assessment year 1961-62. If that is the commencing date of limitation, the notices issued on February 3, 1968, for initiation of rectification proceedings were clearly time-barred. Even assuming as contended by the learned counsel for the revenue that the limitation should commence to run for the first rectification order of May 21, 1965, even then, what was sought to be rectified was the mistake which was committed by the Income-tax Officer in allowing the set-off of the loss of assessment year 1954-55 against the business income of the petitioner-company for the relevant assessment year 1961-62. In the aforesaid first rectification order of May 21, 1965, the Income-tax Officer had taken the same amount, namely, Rs. 12,39,626, as loss for assessment year 1954-55. It, therefore, cannot be said that what was sought to be done by the respondent herein was in effect and substance the rectification of the order of May 21, 1965.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer (Tds) vs Shri Bhogavati Sah. Sakhar Karkhana ... on 23 August, 2005

So beyond doubt, a liability has actually been fastened through the laid down procedure of Income-tax Act and the assessee denies that liability so fastened upon him. With this foregoing discussion, we have examined the precedents and have found that the Hon'ble Courts have unanimously held that the denial must be of the liability determined under the Act though meant merely under any particular sections of the Act mentioned in Section 246 of the Income-tax Act. It was held that when an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against an order, then, it means that he is denying his liability to be assessed under the Income-tax Act. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mandal Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 332.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

V.P. Minocha, Income-Tax Officer, ... vs Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, ... on 15 October, 1973

12. A Division Bench of this court in Mandal Ginning and Pressing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1973] 90 ITR 332 (Guj) has held that an assessee had no right to appeal under section 30(1) of the Act of 1922 , against an order of rectification made under section 35(1) Act. In view of this decision of this court, it is obvious that the assessee had no right of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not competent and, therefore, it was rightly held by the Tribunal by its order dated March 5, 1970, that the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not competent.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Aop Of Sanjaybhai R. Patel & 11 Ors. vs Assessing Officer on 15 January, 2004

41. The decisions relied on by Mr. Shah in the case of CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas (supra) and Mandal Ginning & Pressing Co Ltd. (supra) do not render much assistance to the petitioners as there is no dispute about the proposition that once a final assessment is arrived at, it cannot be reopened except in the circumstances detailed in sections 34 and 35 of the Act. However, provision similar to one contained in section 245F was not under consideration before the Privy Council. Even section 245-I also makes an exception that "Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter", meaning thereby that though the order passed by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) is final and conclusive, it can be reopened or amended by resorting to the provisions contained in section 245F(1) of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - K A Puj - Full Document

Sapjaybhai R. Patel vs Assessing Officer on 15 January, 2004

41. The decisions relied on by Mr. Shah in the case of Khemchand Ramdas (supra) and Mandal Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. (supra) do not render much assistance to the petitioners as there is no dispute about the proposition that once a final assessment is arrived at, it cannot be reopened except in the circumstances detailed in sections 34 & 35 of the Act. However, provision similar to one contained in section 245F was not under consideration before the Privy Council. Even section 245-I also makes an exception that "Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter", meaning thereby that though the order passed by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) is final and conclusive, it can be reopened or amended by resorting to the provisions contained in section 245F(I) of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - K A Puj - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) vs Jardine Henderson Ltd. on 25 August, 1976

(h) Mandal Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1973) 90 ITR 332 (Guj). In this case, the Gujarat High Court construed the expression "assessed" in Section 30(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court held that the expression should not be given a narrow meaning. In the section the words " under this Act " clearly showed that reference was being made to the entire procedure for imposition of liability. But proceedings under Section 35 of the Act would not be proceedings for assessment. There could be no right of appeal under Section 30 of the Act against an order of rectification made under Section 35 of the Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next