Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.58 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Citibank N.A. vs S.K. Ojha And Ors. on 22 February, 2002
The Bombay High Court in Citibank N.A. v. S.K. Ojha and Ors. (supra), while discussing the jurisdiction of the ITO to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, noticed that mere production of evidence before the ITO is not enough. There may be omission or failure to make a true and full disclosure. If some material for the assessment lay embedded in the evidence which the Revenue could have uncovered but did not, then it is the duty of the assessee to bring it to the notice of the assessing authority. If there are some primary facts from which a reasonable belief could be formed that there was some non-disclosure or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the ITO has jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sirsa Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 17 November, 1988
12. A Division Bench of this Court in Sirsa Industries v. CIT and Anr. (supra), while reversing the view taken by the learned Single Judge, held as under :
M/S. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal And Another vs Income-Tax Officer And Another on 13 July, 1993
7. An analysis of the above reproduced provisions shows that an ITO can take recourse to these provisions if the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for his assessment. Thus, for invoking Section 147(a), two ingredients are required to be satisfied. Firstly, income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment should be there and secondly, it should be as a result of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for his assessment. The Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chand Barjrang Lal and Anr. v. ITO and Anr. (supra), while defining the scope of Section 147(a) of the Act, has held as under;
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Leader Engineering Works on 7 May, 2002
13. The aforesaid decision was followed in CIT v. Leader Engineering Works (supra) by another Division Bench of which one of us (G.S. Singhvi, J.) was a member.
Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
M/S. Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd vs C.I.T., West Bengal on 10 October, 1972
In Chownnghee Sales Bureau's case (supra), the sole point for consideration was whether an auctioneer would be a dealer within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941. In the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, an auctioneer is neither the seller nor the buyer and is merely a commission agent.