Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.31 seconds)Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs D.R. Naik on 20 March, 1939
(b) CIT vs. D. R. Naik (1937) 7 ITR 362 (Bom) : TC 51R.522, was cited for the proposition that the fact that the mistake could have been rectified under s. 35 of the Act of 1922 was no reason why it should not be altered under s. 34 thereof if the case falls within that section. It was held that there was no reason for supposing that ss. 34 and 35 were mutually exclusive.
Jamnadas Madhavji And Co. And Another vs J.B. Panchal, Income-Tax Officer And ... on 31 March, 1986
In the decision in Jamnadas Madhavji & Co. vs. J. B. Panchal, ITO (supra) summons for production of documents and furnishing information was issued when no proceedings were pending, and it is in that context it was held that there were no proceedings pending and, therefore, summons was liable to be quashed. That decision cannot have any bearing on the type of enquiry that was being made from the assessee to find out whether he had filed the returns or not. The AO, in any view of the matter, had at the relevant time reason to believe that the returns were not filed and therefore, issuance of the notice under s. 147 cannot be said to have been done without jurisdiction. The assessee can even now answer these notices and point out that the return were filed and that there was no escapement of income chargeable to tax.