Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
In a previous Full Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner
of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported as [2002] 256 ITR
1, this Court expressed disagreement with the Gujarat High Court‟s
observations in Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M.J.), CIT (Asst.)
WP(C) 142/1998 Page 8 of 12
[1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj). The Gujarat High Court held that, if looking
back, it appears to the Assessing Officer that a particular item even though
reflected on the record, was not subject to and was left out while making
the Assessment Order, that amounted to justifiable "reasons to believe",
warranting re-assessment. The Full Bench expressed its disagreement in
the following terms:
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi, New ... vs Usha International Limited on 21 September, 2012
11. The court also notices that in Usha (Supra) there was no blanket
proposition that omission to discuss or deal with material furnished in the
WP(C) 142/1998 Page 10 of 12
course of original assessment proceedings, can result in formation of
"reasons to believe" under Section 147. This is evident from the
following observations:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Praful Chunilal Patel vs M.J. Makwana, Assistant Commissioner ... on 19 February, 1998
In a previous Full Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner
of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported as [2002] 256 ITR
1, this Court expressed disagreement with the Gujarat High Court‟s
observations in Praful Chunilal Patel v. Makwana (M.J.), CIT (Asst.)
WP(C) 142/1998 Page 8 of 12
[1999] 236 ITR 832 (Guj). The Gujarat High Court held that, if looking
back, it appears to the Assessing Officer that a particular item even though
reflected on the record, was not subject to and was left out while making
the Assessment Order, that amounted to justifiable "reasons to believe",
warranting re-assessment. The Full Bench expressed its disagreement in
the following terms:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1