Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.33 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C.I.T New Delhi vs Orient Craft Ltd. on 20 January, 2014
17. A decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Orient Craft Limited
(354 ITR 536) had occasion to consider a similar question and the Division Bench,
at Page 546, holds as follows;
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer reached the belief that there
was escapement of income ''on going through the return of income'' filed by
the assessee after he accepted the return under section 143(1) without
scrutiny, and nothing more. This is nothing but a review of the earlier
proceedings and an abuse of power by the Assessing Officer, both strongly
deprecated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator (supra). ''
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
M/S.Tanmac India vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 June, 2007
7. It is the contention of Ms.Premalatha, learned Standing Counsel that this Court, in
the case of "Diebold Systems Pvt Ltd., Vs IT Officer (OSD)" in T.C.No.2153 of 2008
dated 11.07.2019, had distinguished the decision of "CIT Vs Orient Craft Ltd (2013)
354 ITR 536" and "TANMAC India Vs Deputy CIT, Pondicherry (2017) 78
Taxmann.com 155 (Madras)".
M/S.Diebold Systems Private Limited vs The Income Tax Officer (Osd) on 11 July, 2019
8. The legal principle laid down in the above decision is that the language employed
in Section 147 does not make any distinction between an order passed under
Section 143(3) and the intimation issued under Section 143(1) and therefore, it is
not permissible to adopt different standards while interpreting the words "reason to
believe" Section 143(1) and Section 143(3). In the instant case, it is not in dispute
that reopening is based upon the return of income filed by the assessee at the first
instance. There is no allegation against the assessee that there was failure on the
part of the assessee to make a true disclosure, nor the assessing officer had relied
on any tangible material, which has come to his knowledge after the filing of the
return and intimation under Section 143(1), justifying reopening. Therefore, to
reopen an assessment based on the return filed by the assessee, will clearly be a
case of change of opinion and consequently bad in law.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd on 23 May, 2007
14. The Division Bench notes that the Supreme Court in the case of Asst. CIT V.
Rajesh Jhaveri stock Brokers P. Ltd, (supra) only deals with the formation of an
opinion at the time of issuance of prima facie intimation and does not indicate
anywhere that a re-assessment can be initiated in the absence of a reason to believe.