Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.70 seconds)
Damodar H. Shah vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 June, 2000 cites

Jamnadas Madhavji And Co. And Another vs J.B. Panchal, Income-Tax Officer And ... on 31 March, 1986

In the decision in Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. vs. J. B. Panchal, ITO (supra) summons for production of documents and furnishing information was issued when no proceedings were pending, and it is in that context it was held that there were no proceedings pending and, therefore, summons was liable to be quashed. That decision cannot have any bearing on the type of enquiry that was being made from the assessee to find out whether he had filed the returns or not. The AO, in any view of the matter, had at the relevant time reason to believe that the returns were not filed and therefore, issuance of the notice under s. 147 cannot be said to have been done without jurisdiction. The assessee can even now answer these notices and point out that the return were filed and that there was no escapement of income chargeable to tax.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs E.I.D. Parry Limited on 9 March, 1995

(d) The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. E.I.D. Parry Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 489 (Mad) : TC 51R.521, in which it was held that existence of the information for the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is the sine qua non for reopening the assessment under s. 147(b) and discovery of an error apparent on the record is the sine qua non for rectification under s. 154 of the Act. It was held that ITO can have recourse to one or the other, but he must have recourse to the appropriate provision having regard to the facts and circumstances in each case. In cases where the two appear to overlap, the ITO must choose one in preference to the other and proceed, and he should not take one as the appropriate proceeding and give it up at a later stage to have recourse to the other, since such proceedings are quasi-judicial and adjudication after notice is intended for the same purpose. In such a case of overlapping, constructive res judicata and not the statutory inhibition, should make the ITO desist from using one proceeding after the other instead of using one of the two with due care and caution.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 14 December, 1960

(c) Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 547 (Mad) : TC 51R.1411, which followed the decision in CIT vs. D. R. Naik (supra) was cited for the proposition that the real question was not whether s. 34 and s. 35 in the Act of 1922, were mutually exclusive in their operation, but whether, if in a given case the statutory requirements of both ss. 34 and 35 were satisfied, the ITO could have recourse to either. It was observed that in such a case the fact that there was over lapping will not bar recourse to either section at the choice of the assessing authority. It was also held that the mistake apparent on the face of an order of assessment may itself constitutes information, and, the availability of powers vested in the ITO by s. 35 did not create a bar on the recourse to the jurisdiction vested in him by s. 34.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 68 - Full Document

Shr1 Radeshyam Khare & Another vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others on 30 September, 1958

(d) Radheshyam Khare & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 107, was referred to, to point out that the proposition laid down in the Mayor & C. of Westminister vs. London & North Western Railway Co. (supra) was approved by the Supreme Court. If the statute gives to the State Government powers under its various provisions and the State Government chooses in its discretion to use one rather than the other, it was beyond the power of any Court to contest that discretion unless a case of abuse was made out.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 61 - Full Document

Hira Lal Sutwala vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. & V.P. on 26 February, 1964

(f) Hira Lal Sutwala vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 339 (All) : TC 53R.545, was cited to show that in the opinion of the Allahabad High Court, it cannot be said that if a case was governed by s. 34(1) of the Act of 1922, it may not be governed by s. 35(1). It was held that if there is a mistake apparent from the record of assessment, it can be rectified under s. 35(1) even though some income has escaped from assessment as a result of the mistake. Therefore, rectification of a mistake apparent can be ordered by an ITO even if some income had escaped assessment and he could accomplish his object by proceeding under s. 34(1) instead.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

C. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat ... vs Himatlal Bhagubhai on 17 September, 1971

(h) CIT vs. Himatlal Bhagubhai (1972) 86 ITR 481 (Guj) : TC 51R.518, was referred to point out that it was held by this Court that if the ITO omits to rectify the assessment of the assessee under s. 35(5) of the Act of 1922, within the time prescribed, he was not precluded from reassessing the assessee's income under s. 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961, so as to include his additional profits. It was held that where there are several distinct powers conferred on the ITO to disturb the finality of an assessment, the ITO may exercise any one of them.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 8 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Bihar State Road Transport Corporation vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 April, 1986

(i) Bihar State Road Transport Corporation vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 736 (Pat) : TC 51R.1132 was cited to point out that the Patna High Court also has taken a view that in cases where reassessment under s. 147 or rectification under s. 154 were both equally competent, the Department may take action under either section, since the two sections were not mutually exclusive.
Patna High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 28 - Full Document
1   2 Next