Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.37 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 1 October, 1958
In Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Hyderabad v. Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, H.E.H. The Nizam of Hyderabad and Ors. 72 I.T.R. 376. this Court was considering the question whether the opinion of the Central Board if Revenue would amount to 'information 'within Section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act.After citing the decision in Maharaj Kumar Singh v. Commissioner of Income -tax, Bihar and Orissa 35 I.T.R. 1. under Section 34(1) of Income -tax Act,this Court reiterated the view taken in that case and observed that the opinion expressed by the Board of Revenue as to valuation was clearly 'information'.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs A. Raman & Company on 18 July, 1967
13. We feel that the view of the Delhi High Court in 84 I.T.R. 584 and 99 I.T.R. 148 and that of the Kerala High Court in 85 I.T.R. 102 is correct. Ample support is derived for that view from the law laid down by this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat, v. A. Raman and Co. 67 I.T.R. 11.where it was held that the expression 'information' in the context would mean instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning fact or particulars or as to law relating to a matter bearing on the assessment. It is not disputed that the decisions of courts of law and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal would be 'information' of law. This Court, as already pointed out in 72 I.T.R. 376 has held that the opinion of the Central Board of Revenue as regard the valuation of securities for the purpose of Estate Duty would be information.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs Chand Kanwarji, Alwar on 26 July, 1971
12. The plea of the learned Counsel that the audit report is not 'information' remains to be considered. A few decisions of the High Court on this point may now be referred to. In Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. H. H. Smt. Chand Kanwarji 84 I.T.R.584. the Delhi High Court held that the scrutiny note of the Revenue Audit and the letter of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner constituted 'information' within the meaning of Section 147(b) from an "external source" and the assessments were, therefore, valid. The Income-tax Officer treated the income derived by way of interest from bank deposits as "earned income" and accepted the assessee's claim of expenditure on the salary paid to her daughter-in-law. Subsequently, the revenue audit staff working under the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, while scrutinising these assessments, brought to the notice of the department that the Income-tax Officer had wrongly treated the "interest income" as "business income" and also that the Income-tax Officer had wrongly allowed the assessee's claim with regard to the salary paid to her daughter-in-law. The Income-tax Officer acted upon this note and reopened the original assessment. A Bench of the Delhi High Court relying on the reasoning of this Court in 72 I.T.R. 376 that the opinion expressed by the Central Board of Revenue in appeal under the Estate Duty Act would be 'information' held that the note of the revenue audit under the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India would be 'infor- mation'.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Union Land And Building Society Pvt. ... on 10 February, 1971
The same view was expressed in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kelukuttyi85 I.T.R. 102. by the Kerala High Court. Mathew J. speaking for the court held that the note put up by the Audit to the effect that the assessment ought to have been made on the reconstituted firm for the entire income of the two periods and therefore the Income-tax Officer committed an error, was instruction or knowledge derived from an external source and would constitute 'information'.
Vashist Bhargava vs Income-Tax Officer, Salary Circle on 10 December, 1974
In Vushist Bhargava v. Income-tax Officer, Salary Circle, New Delhi 99 I.T.R. 148., a Bench of the Delhi High Court held that when subsequent to the assessment the Ministry of Law and the Revenue Audit pointed out that as a question of fact the payment of interest by the petitioner was made to his own account in the Provident Fund and as a question of law the money so paid did not vest in the Government but continued to belong to the petitioner and therefore, the income of the petitioner had escaped assessment, it would be 'information' available to the Income-tax Officer.