Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Gladys S. Koder vs Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward on 6 January, 1974
If someone otherwise volunteers for assessment, that may be of no consequence nor it will forestall the making of an assessment against a person legally liable to pay tax in respect of that income. The argument that as the same income has been assessed as a protective measure in the hands of Ram Prasad, individual, and, thus, no notice under section 148 could be issued to assess that income in the hands of Ram Prasad (HUF), is stated to be rejected. The invalidity of the impugned notices cannot be upheld on contention under discussion which is hereby rejected by saying that the assessment of an income in wrong hands would not preclude the assessing officer to initiate appropriate proceedings in the hands of a person who, in law, may be liable to be taxed in respect of that income.'
Same view has been taken by Calcutta High Court in Rajinder Mohan Bhandari v. Income Tax Officer (1978) 111 ITR 407 (Cal) and by Kerala High Court in Mrs. Gladys S. Koder v. Income Tax Officer (1976) 104 ITR 220 (Ker). In view of these circumstances, we uphold the order of Commissioner (Appeals). "
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi vs Rao Thakur Narayan Singh on 30 October, 1964
9. No doubt, placing reliance on several authorities such as CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh (1965) 56 ITR 234 (SC), CIT v. H. Holck Larsen (1972) 85 ITR 467 (Bom), Hum Boldt Wedag India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (1999) 236 ITR 845 (Cal) and Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), learned counsel for the appellant made attempt to assail the impugned notice but in our view, we cannot accept his submission law laid down in these cases is distinguishable on fact of this case and hence, these decisions with respect have no application. First facts and then authorities.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs H. Holck Larsen on 8 May, 1986
9. No doubt, placing reliance on several authorities such as CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh (1965) 56 ITR 234 (SC), CIT v. H. Holck Larsen (1972) 85 ITR 467 (Bom), Hum Boldt Wedag India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (1999) 236 ITR 845 (Cal) and Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), learned counsel for the appellant made attempt to assail the impugned notice but in our view, we cannot accept his submission law laid down in these cases is distinguishable on fact of this case and hence, these decisions with respect have no application. First facts and then authorities.
Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Ward 'A', ... on 16 November, 1976
9. No doubt, placing reliance on several authorities such as CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh (1965) 56 ITR 234 (SC), CIT v. H. Holck Larsen (1972) 85 ITR 467 (Bom), Hum Boldt Wedag India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (1999) 236 ITR 845 (Cal) and Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), learned counsel for the appellant made attempt to assail the impugned notice but in our view, we cannot accept his submission law laid down in these cases is distinguishable on fact of this case and hence, these decisions with respect have no application. First facts and then authorities.
Ram Narain Laxman Prasad vs Income-Tax Officer, "D" Ward And Ors. on 20 May, 1971
In this regard, we are also supported by the following cases
'Ram Prasad v. Income Tax Officer (1995) 82 Taxman 199 (All). In this case, on p. 205, Allahabad High Court has observed as under :
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Rajinder Mohan Bhandari vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 24 February, 1976
If someone otherwise volunteers for assessment, that may be of no consequence nor it will forestall the making of an assessment against a person legally liable to pay tax in respect of that income. The argument that as the same income has been assessed as a protective measure in the hands of Ram Prasad, individual, and, thus, no notice under section 148 could be issued to assess that income in the hands of Ram Prasad (HUF), is stated to be rejected. The invalidity of the impugned notices cannot be upheld on contention under discussion which is hereby rejected by saying that the assessment of an income in wrong hands would not preclude the assessing officer to initiate appropriate proceedings in the hands of a person who, in law, may be liable to be taxed in respect of that income.'
Same view has been taken by Calcutta High Court in Rajinder Mohan Bhandari v. Income Tax Officer (1978) 111 ITR 407 (Cal) and by Kerala High Court in Mrs. Gladys S. Koder v. Income Tax Officer (1976) 104 ITR 220 (Ker). In view of these circumstances, we uphold the order of Commissioner (Appeals). "
Hum Boldt Wedag India Ltd. And Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 23 May, 1997
9. No doubt, placing reliance on several authorities such as CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh (1965) 56 ITR 234 (SC), CIT v. H. Holck Larsen (1972) 85 ITR 467 (Bom), Hum Boldt Wedag India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (1999) 236 ITR 845 (Cal) and Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), learned counsel for the appellant made attempt to assail the impugned notice but in our view, we cannot accept his submission law laid down in these cases is distinguishable on fact of this case and hence, these decisions with respect have no application. First facts and then authorities.
1