Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.40 seconds)Section 10A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
Consequently, the order passed under
section 143(3) cannot be regarded as satisfying the requirements of
section 263 going by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court
in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83.
Cit vs Max India Ltd. on 1 November, 2007
The
Supreme Court in fact relied on the above decision in CIT vs. Max
India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282. Even otherwise, the Assessing Officer
has taken a possible or a permissible view in law having consciously
allowed deduction under section 10A after making enquiries and on
an application of mind.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore vs Infosys Technologies Ltd on 4 January, 2008
On similar facts and circumstances,
the Coordinate Bench in Infosys BPO Ltd v ACIT (2012) 54 SOT 168
(Bangalore) after considering the decision of the Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court in CIT v Infosys Technologies Ltd (2012)
341 ITR 293 held as under:
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
The above ruling of the
Hon'ble Court has the sanctity of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Limited [(2010) 320
ITR 561 (SC)].
Section 115JB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-Ii vs Leisure Wear Exports Limited on 14 September, 2010
7.6.6 The Delhi High Court in CIT v Leisure Wear Exports Ltd
(2012) 341 ITR 166 held that the power of revision is not meant to
be exercised for the purpose of directing the Assessing Officer to
hold another investigation without describing as to how the order of
the Assessing Officer is erroneous.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Anil Kumar Sharma on 24 February, 2010
7.3.5 The disagreement of the learned CIT with the view taken by
the Assessing Officer cannot by itself clothe him with jurisdiction
under section 263 to revise the assessment order. The assessment
made by the Assessing Officer in the present case having been
passed after an application of mind and consideration of the
materials, documents and evidences produced, the conclusions
drawn by him in the order passed under section 143(3) cannot be
branded as erroneous only because the Commissioner chooses not
to agree with him. Even otherwise, it is not a case of a 'lack of
enquiry' by the Assessing Officer in respect of computation and
allowability of deduction under section 10A. The Delhi High Court in
Cit vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2009) 227 CTR 133, CIT v. Anil Kumar
Sharma (2010) 194 TAXMAN 504, CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194
TAXMAN 57, CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd
(2011) 196 TAXMAN 368 has consistently held that the
Commissioner cannot revise the order passed under section 143(3)
for 'inadequate enquiry'.
Cit vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. on 30 May, 2012
7.3.5 The disagreement of the learned CIT with the view taken by
the Assessing Officer cannot by itself clothe him with jurisdiction
under section 263 to revise the assessment order. The assessment
made by the Assessing Officer in the present case having been
passed after an application of mind and consideration of the
materials, documents and evidences produced, the conclusions
drawn by him in the order passed under section 143(3) cannot be
branded as erroneous only because the Commissioner chooses not
to agree with him. Even otherwise, it is not a case of a 'lack of
enquiry' by the Assessing Officer in respect of computation and
allowability of deduction under section 10A. The Delhi High Court in
Cit vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2009) 227 CTR 133, CIT v. Anil Kumar
Sharma (2010) 194 TAXMAN 504, CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194
TAXMAN 57, CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd
(2011) 196 TAXMAN 368 has consistently held that the
Commissioner cannot revise the order passed under section 143(3)
for 'inadequate enquiry'.