Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 48 (0.28 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 69A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Others vs Garware Nylons Ltd. Etc on 9 September, 1996
In the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Garware Nylong Ltd. &
Ors.(supra), the issue involved as to whether "Nylon Twine" can be
considered as "Nylon Yarn" so that has to be covered by item 18 of the 1 st
schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood prior to the
amendment of 1977. The Apex Court in the given facts and circumstances of
Page No.# 24/27
that case concurred with the conclusions reached by the High Court and
found that same to be justified in law. The Apex Court held that the burden of
proof is on the taxing authorities to show that the particular case or item in
question is taxable in the manner claimed by them. Mere assertion in that
regard is of no avail. There should be material may be either oral or
documentary. It is for the taxing authorities to lay evidence in that behalf
even before the 1st adjudicating authority.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P. Mohanakala on 15 May, 2007
(ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P. Mohanakala, 2007 AIR SCW 3638;
Orissa Rural Housing Development ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 15 December, 2011
In the case of Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd.
vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) (supra), a Division
Bench of the Orissa High Court in the given facts of that case held that
Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is an alternative remedy available to the
petitioner and the assessee who does not want to avail remedy by way of
appeal. The remedy available under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act,
therefore, is an alternative remedy and not an additional remedy and the
assessee is not permitted to pursue both the remedies either simultaneously
or one after another.