Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.28 seconds)Section 292B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs Dimension Apparels Pvt. Ltd. on 20 March, 2015
"9. There is another aspect in these appeals, which is the applicability of Section 292B of the Act. Section 292B, inter alia, prescribes that proceedings etc. initiated cannot be deemed invalid "merely by reason of mistake, defect or omission" in any return of income, assessment or notice. The revenue had argued that this provision neutralizes procedural defects in jurisdiction. In these circumstances, it was submitted, having regard to the assessee's omission to urge the so-called illegality at the threshold, the Court ITA 441/2013 & connected matters Page 6 ought to interfere with the order of the ITAT. This question, too, has been dealt with - in CIT v. Dimension Apparels Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2015) 370 ITR 288.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Indian Mica Supply Co. P. Ltd. on 16 April, 1970
32. Also as regards section 292B of the Act, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Micra India (P) Ltd. ITA No. 441, 444 to 446, 452 & 461/2013 dated 22.1.2013 has considering the applicability of section 292B of the Act and the plea regarding participation during the course of assessment held as under:
Impsat (P) Ltd. vs Ito on 28 July, 2004
"When the AO passed the order of assessment against the respondent company, it has already been dissolved and struck off the register of the Registrar of companies under section 560 of the Companies Act. In these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that there could not have been any assessment order passed against the company which was not in existence as on that date in the eyes of law it had already been dissolved. The Tribunal relied upon its earlier decision in Impsat Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 276 ITR 136 (AT). We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is perfectly valid and in accordance with law. No substantial question of law arises dismissed."
Section 394 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. ... on 30 April, 2007
The above view has been followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Radha Apparels Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 4956/2015 dated 18.3.2015 whereby it has been held as under:
Commissioner Of Income Tax (C)-Ii vs Micra India Pvt Ltd on 22 January, 2015
"7 In the present case also, the proceedings had been initiated against a non existing company/SSS initiated against a non-existing company/SSS Limited even after the amalgamation of the said company with M/s Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd. We do no see any good ground to differ with the said judgment of the Delhi High Court.
Sri Budhia Swain & Ors vs Gopinath Deb & Ors on 7 May, 1999
In Budhia Swain and Ors. Vs. Gopinath Dev and Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 396, it was highlighted that distinction exists and was well recognized between lack of jurisdiction and mere error in exercise of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction strikes at the very root of the action/act and want of jurisdiction might vitiate proceedings rendering the orders passed and exercise thereof, a nullity. But a mere error in exercise of jurisdiction would not vitiate the legality and validity of the proceedings and the said order was valid unless set aside in the manner known to law by laying a challenge, subject to law of limitation.