Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (2.51 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Article 133 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 149 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
...On the facts found by the Tribunal, it is established that the assessee's father had clearly suppressed the receipt of Rs. 1,50,000 from the mortgagor. The assessee had a duty to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for this assessment. Herein we are not dealing with a case coming under Section 34(1)(b). All that we have to see is whether the requirements of Section 34(1)(a) are satisfied. This Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta, ruled that to confer jurisdiction on the Income-tax Officer to take action under Section 34(1)(a) two conditions must be satisfied, viz., (1) he has reason to believe that there was wider-assessment, and (2) that he must have reason to believe that the under-assessment has resulted from non-disclosure of material facts. On the facts found, under-assessment is established and it is also established that under-assessment was due to non-disclosure of material facts. There can be no doubt that at the time he issued notice under Section 34(1)(a) on the basis of the material before him, the Income-tax Officer could have formed the necessary belief. In the notice issued he says that he had formed that belief. In our opinion, the requirements of Section 34(1)(a) are fully satisfied. The fact that there was some vague information before the Income-tax Officer that the assessee's father had secretly received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 from the mortgagor was by itself not sufficient to bring to tax that amount particularly in view of the fact that the assessee had stoutly denied that fact and the court records did not support that information. It is true that the Income-tax Officer could have made further enquiry into the matter but the fact that he did not make any further enquiry does not take the case out of Section 34(1)(a) particularly when the assessee had failed to place truly and fully all the material facts before him....
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Calcutta vs Burlop Dealers Ltd on 21 January, 1971
The observations in Burlop's case, noticed above, were made in the peculiar fact situation of that case and cannot be construed to be of universal application irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the particular case.