Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 58 (0.03 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
In my view, therefore, the GKN case does not run counter to the Calcutta Discount Co. case (supra) but it merely provides for challenge to the reassessment notice in two stages, that is--
Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. vs Foramer France (Through Constituted ... on 16 January, 2003
14.1 As regards the decision of the apex Court in CIT v. Foramer France (supra), the said decision reads as under:
Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer And Ors on 25 November, 2002
5. As against this, Mr. B.B. Naik, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-authority, submitted that the petitioner should not be entertained because the petitioner was entitled to alternative remedy by way of appeal, etc., in case an adverse order was passed against the petitioner. That even otherwise, as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), when a notice under Section 148 of the Act is issued, the noticee is required to file return and thereafter, seek reasons for issuance of notice. That the AO is bound to furnish reasons within reasonable time and on receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections and the AO is bound to dispose of the said objections by passing a speaking order. It was, therefore, submitted that in the present case, the petitioner can raise its objections and the AO was bound to deal with the same and dispose of the same.
Praful Chunilal Patel vs M.J. Makwana, Assistant Commissioner ... on 19 February, 1998
22. The decision in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel v. M.J. Makwana, Asstt. CIT (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue, instead of assisting the case of the Revenue, supports the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. This Court has specifically dealt with two distinct situations: one arising within the period of four years and another arising beyond the period of four years in the following words:
Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Ward 'A', ... on 16 November, 1976
In the aforesaid decision in the case of Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO (supra), the apex Court has also stated that when an officer relies upon his own records, for determining the amount of depreciation allowable to the assessee and makes a mistake in doing so, responsibility for that mistake cannot be ascribed to an omission or failure on the part of the assessee. The apex Court concludes its judgment in the following terms: