Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.61 seconds)Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80G in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80IA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
7. Now before us, learned D.R., strongly assailing the order of
CIT(Appeals), submitted that in the original assessment completed on
16.5.2006, there was no consideration whatsoever regarding claim of
the assessee under Section 80-IB of the Act, or the nature of business in
which assessee was engaged. Nothing was mentioned in the
assessment order regarding the claim of assessee under Section 80-IB
of the Act. Not even Section 80-IB was mentioned by A.O. anywhere in
the assessment order. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had never
applied his mind on this aspect during the course of original assessment
proceedings. He simply presumed that assessee was eligible under
Section 80-IB of the Act and proceeded accordingly. No details were
submitted by the assessee during the course of original assessment
proceedings. Unless there was an opinion formed, there cannot be a
change of opinion. According to him, decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra) relied on by the CIT(Appeals)
was misplaced since the question there was whether a reopening could
be done based on a change of opinion. No doubt, as per the learned
D.R., it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that reopening could not be on a
change of opinion. But, here since there was no opinion formed by the
Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment proceedings. Thus,
it was not a question of change of opinion at all. It was a total non-
application of mind. Assessee was also not saved by Explanation to
Section 147 of the Act since the reopening was admittedly done within
7 I.T.A. No. 700/Mds/2010
C.O. No. 100/Mds/2010
four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore,
according to him, the re-assessment was perfectly done. As per learned
D.R., assessments for earlier years were done under Section 143(1) of
the Act summarily, and therefore, these could not be considered as a
binding precedence, so as to accord similar deduction in the subsequent
years also.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Veena Textiles Pvt. Ltd. on 4 January, 1984
Civil Appeal No.1775 emanated from the
decision of jurisdictional High Court in T.C. No.146 of 1979 reported as
CIT v. Veena Textiles (P) Ltd. (155 ITR 794). The other appeal
emanated from the second case relied on by the learned D.R., the
question raised before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was whether
assessee purchasing cloth and doing embroidery designs with
machinery, could be considered as manufacturer or producer of textiles.
Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that assessee was not indulging in
any manufacturing activity and therefore, not entitled for higher rate of
development rebate under Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) of the Act. But, Hon'ble
Apex Court while reversing this judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High
Court, held that what assessee was doing was a manufacturing activity
and it was entitled for development rebate.