Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Shri Vipin Kumar Khanna, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 16 March, 2018 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd on 15 February, 2012

9. Learned Departmental Representative has referred to a number of judicial precedents in support of her stand that even deposits in the bank account, as having come to the notice of the Assessing Officer through AIR, can be reason enough for holding the belief that income has escaped assessment. She has relied upon the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd [2012]342 ITR 169/206 Taxmann 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) but then none of the questions before Honble High Court had anything to do with reopening of assessment and this decision cannot, therefore, be taken as an authority on the legal issue which did not even come up for specific adjudication before Their Lordships.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 429 - R V Easwar - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Dist, Vi, ... vs Lakhmani Mewal Das on 30 March, 1976

While dealing with this aspect of the matter, it is useful to bear in mind the following observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] l03ITR437, " the reasons for the formation of the belief must have rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the ITO and the formation of this belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It is no doubt true that the Court cannot go into sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the ITO on the point as to whether action should be initiated for reopening assessment. At the same time we have to bear in mind that it is not any and every 14 material, howsoever vague and indefinite or distant, remote and farfetched, which would warrant the formation of the belief relating to escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment. "
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 885 - H R Khanna - Full Document

M/S. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal And Another vs Income-Tax Officer And Another on 13 July, 1993

As for her reliance on Honble Supreme Courts judgment in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203ITR 456/69 Taxmann 627, that was case in which Their Lordships concluded that the AO "rightly initiated the reassessment proceedings on the basis of 16 subsequent information, which was specific relevant and reliable, and after recording the reasons for formation of his own belief that in the original assessment proceedings, the assessee had not disclosed the material facts truly and fully and, therefore, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment" and we are unable to see anything on the facts of the present case which are materially similar to the facts of the said case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 508 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs R.B. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 25 February, 2004

7. It is well settled in law that reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis. Nothing can be added to the reasons so recorded, nor anything can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 11 3321137 Taxmann 479 , has, inter alia, observed that " It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn on the basis of reasons not recorded. It is for the AO to disclose and open his mind through the reasons recorded by him He has to speak through the reasons. " Their Lordships added that "The reasons recorded should be self explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for reasons. Reasons provide link between conclusion and the evidence .... ". Therefore, the reasons are to be examined only on the basis of the reasons as recorded. The next important point is that even though reasons, as recorded, may not necessarily prove escapement of income at the stage of recording the reasons, such reasons must point out to an income escaping assessment and not merely need of an inquiry which may result in detection of an income escaping assessment. Undoubtedly, at the stage of recording the reasons for reopening the assessment, all that is necessary is the formation of prima facie belief that an 12 income has escaped the assessment and it is not necessary that the fact of income having escaped assessment is proved to the hilt. What is, however, necessary is that there must be something which indicates, even if not establishes, the escapement of income from assessment. It is only on this basis that the Assessing Officer can form the belief that an income has escaped assessment. Merely because some further investigations have not been carried out, which, if made, could have led to detection to an income escaping assessment, cannot be reason enough to hold the view that income has escaped assessment. It is also important to bear in mind the subtle but important distinction between factors which indicate an income escaping the assessments and the factors which indicate a legitimate suspicion about income escaping the assessment. The former category consists of the facts which, if established to be correct, will have a cause and effect relationship with the income escaping the assessment. The latter category consists of the facts, which, if established to be correct, could legitimately lead to further inquiries which may lead to detection of an income which has 13 escaped assessment. There has to be some kind of a cause and effect relationship between reasons recorded and the income escaping assessment.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 271 - V C Daga - Full Document

Prashant S. Joshi vs The Income-Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(4 on 22 February, 2010

6. A plain look at the reasons for reopening the assessment, as produced before us, show that these reasons were recorded after the notice was served on 14th September 2009 as a mention about the fact of service of notice is set out in the recorded reasons itself It is only elementary that the reasons are to be recorded before issuance of notice, and in the absence of any reasons for reopening having been recorded prior to reopening of assessment, the reassessment proceedings fail for this short reason alone. Hon'ble Bombay 10 High Court, in the case of Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO [2010] 3/4 ITR 154/189 Taxmann 1 has observed:
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 134 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1