Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Section 115WB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore vs Infosys Technologies Ltd on 4 January, 2008
12. While adjudicating the scope of section 263 of the Act, the Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.
[2012] 17 taxmann.com 203 (Kar.), Their Lordships have held that the
submission of the assessee could not be accepted that the materials had
been placed before the assessing authority and therefore there should be a
conclusion that the authority has applied his mind to the same and there
was no question of the Commissioner interfering by taking a different view.
Their Lordships have held that assessing authority performs a quasi-judicial
function and the reasons for his conclusion and findings should be
forthcoming in the assessment order. Though it is urged by the assessee
ITA No.1182/Bang/2013
Page 11 of 14
that reasons should be spelt out only in a situation where the assessing
authority passes an order against the assessee or adverse to the interest of
the assessee and there is no need for the assessing authority to spell out
reasons when the order is accepting the claim of the assessee, to accept a
submission of this nature would be to give a free hand to the assessing
authority just to pass order without reasoning and to spell out reasons only
in a situation where the finding is to be against the assessee or any claim
put forth by the assessee is denied. Their Lordships further held that there
cannot be any dichotomy of this nature as every conclusion and finding by
the assessing authority should be supported by reasons, however, brief it
may be, as in a situation where it is only a question of computation in
accordance with relevant articles of a Double Taxation Avoidance
Agreements, it should be clearly indicated in the order of the assessing
authority, whether or not the assessee had given particulars or details of it.
It is the duty of the assessing authority to do that and if the assessing
authority had failed in that, more so in extending a tax relief to the
assessee, the order definitely constitutes an order not merely erroneous
but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, therefore the
Commissioner was justified in exercising the jurisdiction under section 263
of the Act.
R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 May, 2008
In the case
of R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd. v. CIT, 301 ITR 309 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex
Court has categorically held that sub-sections (1) & (2) of section 115WB
must be held to be operating in different fields.
Section 17 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai ... vs M/S Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd on 10 August, 2007
In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sun Micro
Systems India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.203 of 2009; CIT v. Saravana
Developers in ITA No.68/2014 c/w 67/2014.
1