Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.78 seconds)
Panama Petrochem Ltd., Bharuch vs Assessee cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr on 28 July, 1982

It is not open to the assessee to dispute before us the correctness of the above observation in the order of the Tribunal. The question as to what transpired before a Court or Tribunal, if can be gathered from the proceedings or order of the Tribunal, then no party will ordinarily be permitted to take exception to or contradict the statement to that effect in the order. What has been stated in the order should be taken as the last word on that question. If the parties or their counsel are permitted to indulge in a controverting exercise then there will be no end to it. See State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. 1983 (1) SCWR 80, Krishna Pillai vs. Bharathi Amma 1957 KIT 732, Sumangali vs. Kochumatha 1959 KLR 1043, Works Manager, B.S.S. Factory vs. C.P. Singh AIR 1973 SC 272, Bank of Bihar vs. Mahabir Lal & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 377, Vamakshi Renuka vs. Bhargavi Meenakshi 1994 (1) KIT 306, State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249, Gauri Shanker vs. Hindustan Trust (P) Ltd. (1973) 2 SCC 127, Daman Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1985 SC 973, Mohamamed Shafi vs. Mohamamed Haji 1986 KLT (SN) 55, Ramanujamma vs. ITA No.1182/Ahd/2009 M/s.Panama Petrochem Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year - 2004-05
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 529 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Chunnilal Onkarmal (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, "A" Ward And Ors. on 17 September, 1980

But for the direction of the CIT in Annex. 'F' letter dt. 30th May, 2003, the Dy. CIT would not have issued the notice under s. 148 of the Act. Hence, the consequential action for reassessment of income initiated by the Dy. CIT is vitiated. Reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing authority without himself forming the requisite belief under s. 147 of the Act, but instead, reopening assessment on the directions of his superior, are liable to be quashed vide Chunnilal Onkarmal (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1983) 139 ITR 380 (MP) and Sheo Narain Jaiswal vs. ITO (1989) 176 ITR 352 (Pat). The AO had initially completed the assessment on the premise that the assessee was a carrier of 48 gold biscuits in question, the value of which was not treated as the income of the assessee. Going by his statement, the gold biscuits really belonged to one V. Ahammed. When there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact, original assessment cannot be corrected in reassessment proceedings.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, Income ... vs Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur on 16 October, 1974

Vide ITO vs. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur 1974 CTR (SC) 273 : (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC), Lokendra Singh vs. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 450 (MP). It was on the direction of the CIT that the Dy. CIT changed his opinion to hold the view that the sum of Rs. 26,46,000 invested for purchasing the gold biscuits had escaped assessment for the asst. yr. 1998-99.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 100 - A C Gupta - Full Document

Sita World Travel (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 27 May, 2004

There cannot be any reopening of assessment for the mere reason that the AO had subsequently changed his opinion vide Sita World Travels (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Del) 84 : (2004) 140 Taxman 381 (Del). The order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference and may be confirmed. However, the dismissal by the Tribunal of ground Nos. 2, 4 and 5 as not pressed, is not correct since those grounds were also pressed by the assessee.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Bank Of Bihar Ltd vs Mahabir Lal & Ors on 7 February, 1963

Bank of Bihar vs. Mahabir Lal & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 377 Daman Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1985 SC 973 Gauri Shanker vs. Hindustan Trust (P) Ltd. (1973) 2 SCC 127 ITO vs. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur 1974 CTR (SC) 273 : (1974) 97 ITR 239 (SC) Krishna Pillai vs. Bharathi Amma 1957 KLT 732 Lokendra Singh vs. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 450 (MP) Madhavan Pillai vs. Bhaskaran Pillai 1985 KLT (SN) 47 Mohamamed Shafi vs. Mohamamed Haji 1986 KLT (SN) 55 Ramanujamma vs. Nagamma 1968 Andhra Pradesh 223 Sita World Travels (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Del) 84 : (2004) 140 Taxman 381 (Del) State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. 1983 (1) SCWR 80 : AIR 1982 SC 1249 Sumangali vs. Kochumatha 1959 KLR 1043 Vamakshi Renuka vs. Bhargavi Meenakshi 1994 (1) KLT 306 Velayudhan vs. Joseph 1955 KLT 276 Works Manager, B.S.S. Factory vs. C.P. Singh AIR 1973 SC 272 Counsel appeared P.K. Raveendranatha Menon & George K. George, for the Appellant : C. Kochunny Nair & Dale P. Kurien, for the Respondent Judgment V. ramkumar, j. :
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 49 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

2Anardhanan Pillai Babu vs Bhanumathi Amma Kumari Amma on 19 May, 2010

It is not open to the assessee to dispute before us the correctness of the above observation in the order of the Tribunal. The question as to what transpired before a Court or Tribunal, if can be gathered from the proceedings or order of the Tribunal, then no party will ordinarily be permitted to take exception to or contradict the statement to that effect in the order. What has been stated in the order should be taken as the last word on that question. If the parties or their counsel are permitted to indulge in a controverting exercise then there will be no end to it. See State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. 1983 (1) SCWR 80, Krishna Pillai vs. Bharathi Amma 1957 KIT 732, Sumangali vs. Kochumatha 1959 KLR 1043, Works Manager, B.S.S. Factory vs. C.P. Singh AIR 1973 SC 272, Bank of Bihar vs. Mahabir Lal & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 377, Vamakshi Renuka vs. Bhargavi Meenakshi 1994 (1) KIT 306, State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249, Gauri Shanker vs. Hindustan Trust (P) Ltd. (1973) 2 SCC 127, Daman Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1985 SC 973, Mohamamed Shafi vs. Mohamamed Haji 1986 KLT (SN) 55, Ramanujamma vs. ITA No.1182/Ahd/2009 M/s.Panama Petrochem Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year - 2004-05
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Harun-Ul-Rashid - Full Document
1