Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.26 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mitesh Impex....Opponent(S) on 2 April, 2014 cites

Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006

This is what Supreme Court observed in the said judgment while distinguishing the judgment in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) and that is how various High Courts have viewed the dictum of the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra). When it comes to the power of Appellate Commissioner or the Tribunal, the Courts have recognized their jurisdiction to entertain a new ground or a legal contention. A ground would have a reference to an argument touching a question of fact or a question of law or mixed question of law or facts. A legal contention would ordinarily be a pure question of law without raising any dispute about the facts. Not only such additional ground or contention, the Courts have also, as noted above, recognized the powers of the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal to entertain a new claim Page 29 of 32 O/TAXAP/2562/2009 JUDGMENT for the first time though not made before the assessing officer. Income Tax proceedings are not strictly speaking adversarial in nature and the intention of the Revenue would be to tax real income.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1246 - Full Document

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 December, 1996

This is what Supreme Court observed in the said judgment while distinguishing the judgment in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) and that is how various High Courts have viewed the dictum of the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra). When it comes to the power of Appellate Commissioner or the Tribunal, the Courts have recognized their jurisdiction to entertain a new ground or a legal contention. A ground would have a reference to an argument touching a question of fact or a question of law or mixed question of law or facts. A legal contention would ordinarily be a pure question of law without raising any dispute about the facts. Not only such additional ground or contention, the Courts have also, as noted above, recognized the powers of the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal to entertain a new claim Page 29 of 32 O/TAXAP/2562/2009 JUDGMENT for the first time though not made before the assessing officer. Income Tax proceedings are not strictly speaking adversarial in nature and the intention of the Revenue would be to tax real income.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 1462 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders on 21 June, 2012

41. In the decisions that we have noted above, the Courts have considered such questions when a legal contention or a claim was based on material already on record but raised at an appellate stage. On such premise we wholeheartedly agree that the appellate authority and the Tribunal would have the power to entertain any such new ground, legal contention or claim. However, it is only the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P.Ltd.(supra), which has traveled a little beyond this preposition and come to the conclusion that even if facts necessary to examine such a claim are not placed before the assessing officer and, therefore, not on record, there would be no impediment in the Commissioner (Appeals) entertaining such a claim. Such an issue does not arise in these appeals. We would, therefore, reserve our opinion on this limited aspect of the matter if and when in future the question presents before us in such form. For the present, we answer Questions (3) and (4) against the Revenue and in favour of the Page 31 of 32 O/TAXAP/2562/2009 JUDGMENT assessees in manner described above.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 439 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next