Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.59 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Section 24 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... vs H.R. Sri Ramulu on 11 January, 1977
40. It would be seen that whereas in the case of Anglo French Textile Company Limited's case (supra) the question as to the rights of an assessee to claim 'redoing', 'revising' or 'recomputing' entire income during the reassessment proceedings was left open, that question did not come up for consideration in the case of N.H. shri Ramulu (supra) or H.M. Esufali (supra) or even in Jaganmohan Rao's case (supra). Some of the High Courts, therefore, fell in error in reading those judgments, divorced from the context in which the precise questions came up for consideration in those cases, and to hold that the assessee could 'reagitate' the concluded issues and claim relief in respect of items, finally concluded in the original assessment proceedings, during the reassessment proceedings, unconnected with the escapement of income.
Hiralal Maganlal Parikh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 September, 1972
26. The High Court noticed an earlier judgment of the same High Court in Hiralal v. CIT (Raj.) (supra) [one of the Judges Ms. Kanta Bhatnagar J. was common to both the Judgments] wherein, it had been held that in reassessment proceedings the jurisdiction of ITO was confined to such income alone which had escaped assessment but struck a divergent note and said: