Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)
Anjis Developers Private Limited, ... vs Principle Cit-5,Mumbai, Mumbai on 20 February, 2023 cites

Addl Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs J.K. D'Costa on 27 April, 1981

"On a cursory examination, it appeared to us that the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as indicated indicated in the abovementioned decisions is correct, but on closer scrutiny we respectfully disagree with the same. In any case, the matter is not res integra as far as this court is concerned. In Addl. CIT v. J.K.D.' Costa, Income-tax Income Reference No. 82 of 1974, disposed of 1981 reported in [1982) 133 ITR7. we held by us on 27th April, 1981-reported on similar facts that the Commissioner could not pass an order pertaining to penalty under section263 of the Act. We held that the penalty proceedings do not form part of the assessment proceedings.Further, the failure of the ITO to record his satisfaction or the lack of it in the assessment order, with regard to the leviability of penalty cannot be a factor vitiating the assessment orders."
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 72 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Surendra Prasad Agrawal on 1 September, 2004

However, we find that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Agrawal (supra) after considering the decision of the Hon'b Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of J.K. D's Costa (supra) and Achal Kumar Jain (supra) held that non-initiation non of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, the the assessment order erroneous in so far Anjis Developers Pvt. Ltd. 7 ITA No. 959/M/2022 AY 2017-18 Revenue. The relevant finding of as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reproduced as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 20 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

C. A. Abraham, Uppoottil, Kottayam vs The Income-Tax Officer, Kottayam And ... on 29 November, 1960

4)27 ITR 466 and Calcutta High Court in the case of Lid. [1974)27 Singho Mica Mining Co. Lid. v. CIT [19781_LL ITR 231 has held that the order passed by the ITO being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 263 to pass the order. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Indian Pharmaceuticals after Anjis Developers Pvt. Ltd. 10 ITA No. 959/M/2022 AY 2017-18 referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of C.A. Abraham v. ITO[1961] 41 ITR 425 and CIT v. Bheekha Bhai Dada Bhai [1961] 42 ITR 123 has held th that at the assessment does not mean only computation of income but consideration of all facts including the liability for penalty that may attract the provisions contained in section 271(1)(a) of the Act. It has further held that if in any proceeding for asses assessment the Income Tax Officer fails to take notice of the facts attracting the provisions contained under section 271(1)(a) of the Act, it could not be said that his failure to take notice of the facts which section 271(1)(a) of were before him attracting the provisions of section the Act does not amount to an error prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It concluded that if therefore the ITO during the pendency of the proceedings has omitted to take notice of facts attracting section 271(1)(a) of the Act durin duringg the pendency of the proceedings which ultimately ended in an order of assessment, the order would be erroneous and in this view of the matter, the Commissioner was right in exercising jurisdiction conferred on him under section 263 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 563 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next