Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)Section 80IA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 150 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80HHC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999
(iii) Pursuant to reopening of the assessment for AY 2002-03 u/s
150(1), assessment order was passed and surprisingly
10 ITA No267/Del./2013
deduction u/s 80IB was recomputed as per the findings of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sterling Food
237 ITR 579. The AO erred in interpreting section 150(1) of
the Act since the order of the Hon'ble High Court was for AY
2003-04 and not for AY 02-03. The object of enacting section
150(1) is to really give effect to the orders made by the
superior authorities/Courts under the Act or the Constitution
and, thus, bring the assessments for the year or years, as the
case may be, in conformity with those orders without any time
limit. However, the words 'in consequence of or to give effect
to any finding or direction contained in an order passed by
any authority in any proceedings under this Act by way of
appeal, reference or revision,' used in section 150(1) must
necessarily relate to an order with reference to a particular
assessment year or years and that must necessarily be by a
superior authority or Court competent to make the same. The
words 'any proceedings under this Act by way of appeal,
reference or revision' cannot be read as to give effect to an
order made in any case and for any period and of any person.
Rajinder Nath Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 13 August, 1979
In the scheme and context, these words should be so
construed as referable to an order made for a particular year or
years of that particular assessee and not of others. Further,
while dealing with the second proviso to section 34(3) of the
1922 Act, which is equally applicable in construing section
150(1) of the 1961 Act which is somewhat analogous and
corresponds to that provision, the Supreme Court in the case
of ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964 52 ITR 335 &
Rajinder Nath v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 14 has also taken the
same view. Same opinion was also expressed by Karnatka
11 ITA No267/Del./2013
High court in the case of consolidated Coffee Ltd - 155 ITR
729 & High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peico Electronics
210 ITR 991.