Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.43 seconds)Section 129 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 125A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 33B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Income-Tax Officer vs Supan International (P) Ltd. on 23 March, 1984
Further reference is made to another decision of the Tribunal as reported in ITO v. Supan International (P.) Ltd. [1984] 9 ITD 256 (Delhi). In course of his argument, the assessee's learned counsel refers to the different papers placed in the paper book in order to stress the claim of the assessee that the assessment was bad in law since no opportunity was allowed under Section 129 by the ITO, and even otherwise the assessment was barred by limitation. The assessee has also given a zerox copy of Craics' on Statute Law, which is reproduced below:
The State Of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) Ltd on 1 April, 1958
In this connection, he referred to the case law as reported in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Madras Ltd. AIR 1958 SC 560, R.M.D. Chamarbangwalla v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628 and, Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1952 SC 123 with emphasis at page 132. It is emphasised that the policy behind the introduction of Section 144B was to give the assessee an opportunity at the first instance to raise any objection to any proposed addition which would bring about variation of such income of more than Rs. 1 lakh. The learned departmental representative strenuously argued at length, stating that adequate opportunity was given to the assessee by the authorities concerned at every stage. He referred to the decision in the case as reported in 1976 QB 503, and also to another case law as reported in AIR 1977 SC 185.
R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla vs The Union Of India(With Connected ... on 9 April, 1957
In this connection, he referred to the case law as reported in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Madras Ltd. AIR 1958 SC 560, R.M.D. Chamarbangwalla v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628 and, Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1952 SC 123 with emphasis at page 132. It is emphasised that the policy behind the introduction of Section 144B was to give the assessee an opportunity at the first instance to raise any objection to any proposed addition which would bring about variation of such income of more than Rs. 1 lakh. The learned departmental representative strenuously argued at length, stating that adequate opportunity was given to the assessee by the authorities concerned at every stage. He referred to the decision in the case as reported in 1976 QB 503, and also to another case law as reported in AIR 1977 SC 185.
Kathi Raning Rawat vs The State Of Saurashtra on 27 February, 1952
In this connection, he referred to the case law as reported in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Madras Ltd. AIR 1958 SC 560, R.M.D. Chamarbangwalla v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628 and, Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1952 SC 123 with emphasis at page 132. It is emphasised that the policy behind the introduction of Section 144B was to give the assessee an opportunity at the first instance to raise any objection to any proposed addition which would bring about variation of such income of more than Rs. 1 lakh. The learned departmental representative strenuously argued at length, stating that adequate opportunity was given to the assessee by the authorities concerned at every stage. He referred to the decision in the case as reported in 1976 QB 503, and also to another case law as reported in AIR 1977 SC 185.