Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.70 seconds)Section 234A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 234B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shiv Parkash Janakraj & Co. (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 September, 1977
In the case of Shiv Prakash v. CIT (supra) the Hon'ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that an Income-tax Inspector does not have power to record the statement and that such a statement cannot constitute material which can be used by the AO while framing an order of assessment. In the light of the above judicial pronouncements and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) does not call for any interference. The same is confirmed and these appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Dhakeswar1 Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West Bengal on 29 October, 1954
In the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in making an assessment, the AO is not fettered by any technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in Court of law, but the AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be some thing more than bare suspicion to support an order of assessment.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. vs Ranchi Club Ltd. on 1 August, 2000
9. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that there is no order to charge interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961 in the orders of assessment and, therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), he submitted that the AO should be directed not to charge interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C.
Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 19 April, 1965
3. Sona Electric Co. v. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 507 (Del)
Roshan-Di-Hatti vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 March, 1977
2. Roshan Di Haiti v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC).
Income Tax Officer vs Madan Lal on 13 September, 2002
In the said decision, the issue involved being the levy of penalty, the Tribunal thought it fit to allow the assessee to raise all objections with regard to the levy of penalty. The facts in the present case are totally different. The levy of interest having not been challenged by way of an appeal or a cross-objection by the assessee cannot be sought to be raised by a mere argument at the time of hearing of the appeal of the Revenue wherein there is no ground of appeal regarding charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee should not be permitted to raise this question before us. The request of the learned counsel for the assessee is accordingly rejected.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gunwantrai Harivallabh Jani on 3 October, 1997
8. CIT v. Aayachand Jani Vaidya (1975) 98 ITR 280 (All).
1