Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.50 seconds)
Dy. Cit, Cir. vs Smt. R. Sunanda Bai on 18 July, 2005 cites

Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960

8. We have heard the Id. DR for the revenue and ffie Id. AR for the assessee. The Id. DR vehemently submitted that the CIT'(A) has seriously erred in cancelling the assessments on erroneous interpretation of section 147. He further vehemently submitted that on the facts (if the case, the assessee was duty bound to give the correct material and facts to the assessing officer, but in this case there is a serious failure an the part of the assessee to furnish true and correct material facts in respect of the deductions claimed under sections 80HHA and 80-1. Hence, he submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. The Id. AR reiterated his arguments which were made before the Commissioner (Appeals). He has also taken us through the paper book, more particularly pages I to 4, ie., reply filed by the assessee to the DCIT dated 19-3-2002. He also further relied on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1961) 41 ITR 191 and the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court In- the case of Dy. CIT v. Pala Marketing Co-op. Society Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 499 (Ker.). He further submitted that for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 notices under section 148 dated 16-10-2000 were issued to the assessee for reopening the assessments. He further submitted that in view of the bar as per proviso to section 147 of the Income Tax Act, at the most, the reassessment proceedings could have been initiated against the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93 on or before 31-3-1997 and for the assessment year 1993-94 on or before 31-3-1998. He further vehemently submitted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee for disclosing any material facts because the assessing officer himself has considered all the material facts which were placed before him for claiming deduction under sections 80HHA and 80-I for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. He further submitted that there was a typing mistake as far as assessment year 1993-94 is concerned, in that instead of section 80HHA, due to oversight the same was typed as section 80HH. Hence, he submitted that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1681 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Pala Marketing Co-Operative Society ... on 10 March, 2000

8. We have heard the Id. DR for the revenue and ffie Id. AR for the assessee. The Id. DR vehemently submitted that the CIT'(A) has seriously erred in cancelling the assessments on erroneous interpretation of section 147. He further vehemently submitted that on the facts (if the case, the assessee was duty bound to give the correct material and facts to the assessing officer, but in this case there is a serious failure an the part of the assessee to furnish true and correct material facts in respect of the deductions claimed under sections 80HHA and 80-1. Hence, he submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. The Id. AR reiterated his arguments which were made before the Commissioner (Appeals). He has also taken us through the paper book, more particularly pages I to 4, ie., reply filed by the assessee to the DCIT dated 19-3-2002. He also further relied on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (1961) 41 ITR 191 and the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court In- the case of Dy. CIT v. Pala Marketing Co-op. Society Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 499 (Ker.). He further submitted that for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 notices under section 148 dated 16-10-2000 were issued to the assessee for reopening the assessments. He further submitted that in view of the bar as per proviso to section 147 of the Income Tax Act, at the most, the reassessment proceedings could have been initiated against the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93 on or before 31-3-1997 and for the assessment year 1993-94 on or before 31-3-1998. He further vehemently submitted that there was no failure on the part of the assessee for disclosing any material facts because the assessing officer himself has considered all the material facts which were placed before him for claiming deduction under sections 80HHA and 80-I for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. He further submitted that there was a typing mistake as far as assessment year 1993-94 is concerned, in that instead of section 80HHA, due to oversight the same was typed as section 80HH. Hence, he submitted that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessments.
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next