Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.12 seconds)Section 153C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 158BE in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ... vs Shri S.K. Katyal on 12 November, 2008
There the Court took note of the decision of this Court
in CIT v. S.K. Katyal (supra) and observed as under:
Section 132A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 158 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Vls Finance Ltd. And South Asian ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... on 15 December, 2006
28. Finally, it was contended by Mr Chaudhary that the decision in VLS
ITA Nos.290/2016, 605 - 610 /2016, 637 - 641 /2016 & 850/2016 Page 21 of 23
Finance Ltd. v CIT (supra) supports the case of the Revenue and, therefore,
the period of limitation for passing the assessment order should be
calculated from 15th May, 2007.
C. Ramaiah Reddy vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 July, 2003
In the considered view of the Court, the above decision in C. Ramaiah
Reddy (supra) puts it beyond the pale of doubt that merely visiting the
premises on the pretext of concluding the search but not actually finding
anything new for being seized cannot give rise to a second panchnama. In
such event, there would be no occasion to draw up a panchnama at all. In
ITA Nos.290/2016, 605 - 610 /2016, 637 - 641 /2016 & 850/2016 Page 20 of 23
the present case, the Court is satisfied that the second visit by the search
party to the Ashok Vihar premises on 15th May, 2007 did not result in
anything new being found that belonged to any of the searched parties. The
second visit and the panchnama drawn up on that date cannot lead to
postponement of the period for completion of assessment with reference to
Section 153B (2) (a) of the Act.