Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.32 seconds)

Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010

In Fis Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 [(2018) 409 ITR 560], a Division Bench of Delhi High Court, after taking note of the above quoted judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [320 ITR 561] wherein it was held that review of the completed scrutiny can be done only if tangible material is made available to the Revenue and on the facts of the case found that reassessment notice is solely based on an audit opinion and accordingly, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1696 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Vodafone Idea Ltd(Earlier Known As ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 29 April, 2020

19. The decision in Adani Infrastructure & Developers (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [(2019) 101 taxmann.com 256 (Gujarat)] relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee, it was held that re-opening of the assessment merely upon audit objection and was not based upon the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 78 - U U Lalit - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S. Elgi Finance Limited on 7 December, 2021

In this case the reassessment proceedings were initiated after March 31, 1995, and hence the proceedings initiated by issue of notice under section 148 is ab initio barred by limitation. In this case, the initiation of proceedings is after a period of four years and the finding given by the Tribunal is that no income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee. Hence, there is no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under the proviso of section 147 of the Act. The scope of the said provision has been considered by this court in the case of CIT v. Elgi Finance Ltd., [2006] 286 ITR 674, and the same reads as follows (page 678):
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. vs Foramer France (Through Constituted ... on 16 January, 2003

29. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax and Another v. Foramer France [2003 Vol.264 ITR 566], while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue and thereby confirming the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, recorded reasons as to the non- failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for assessment and further found that notices were bad as they were only on http://www.judis.nic.in 37 TCA.Nos.66 & 67 of 2018 the basis of a change of opinion and the law that an assessment could not be reopened on a change of opinion was the same before and after amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 19867 of Section 147.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 219 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next