Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.02 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 132A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80HHC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sita World Travel (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 27 May, 2004
There cannot be any reopening of assessment for
the mere reason that the AO had subsequently changed his opinion vide Sita World
Travels (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2005) 193 CTR (Del) 84 : (2004) 140 Taxman 381 (Del). The
order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference and may be confirmed. However,
the dismissal by the Tribunal of ground Nos. 2, 4 and 5 as not pressed, is not correct
since those grounds were also pressed by the assessee.
State Of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr on 28 July, 1982
It is not open to the assessee to dispute before us the correctness of the
above observation in the order of the Tribunal. The question as to what transpired before
a Court or Tribunal, if can be gathered from the proceedings or order of the Tribunal,
then no party will ordinarily be permitted to take exception to or contradict the statement
to that effect in the order. What has been stated in the order should be taken as the last
word on that question. If the parties or their counsel are permitted to indulge in a
controverting exercise then there will be no end to it. See State of Maharashtra vs.
Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. 1983 (1) SCWR 80, Krishna Pillai vs. Bharathi Amma
1957 KIT 732, Sumangali vs. Kochumatha 1959 KLR 1043, Works Manager, B.S.S.
Factory vs. C.P. Singh AIR 1973 SC 272, Bank of Bihar vs. Mahabir Lal & Ors. AIR 1964
SC 377, Vamakshi Renuka vs. Bhargavi Meenakshi 1994 (1) KIT 306, State of
Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249, Gauri Shanker vs.
Hindustan Trust (P) Ltd. (1973) 2 SCC 127, Daman Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1985
SC 973, Mohamamed Shafi vs. Mohamamed Haji 1986 KLT (SN) 55, Ramanujamma vs.
ITA No.1182/Ahd/2009
M/s.Panama Petrochem Ltd. vs. DCIT
Asst.Year - 2004-05
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 142 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Chunnilal Onkarmal (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, "A" Ward And Ors. on 17 September, 1980
But for the direction of the CIT
in Annex. 'F' letter dt. 30th May, 2003, the Dy. CIT would not have issued the notice
under s. 148 of the Act. Hence, the consequential action for reassessment of income
initiated by the Dy. CIT is vitiated. Reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing
authority without himself forming the requisite belief under s. 147 of the Act, but instead,
reopening assessment on the directions of his superior, are liable to be quashed vide
Chunnilal Onkarmal (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1983) 139 ITR 380 (MP) and Sheo Narain Jaiswal
vs. ITO (1989) 176 ITR 352 (Pat). The AO had initially completed the assessment on the
premise that the assessee was a carrier of 48 gold biscuits in question, the value of
which was not treated as the income of the assessee. Going by his statement, the gold
biscuits really belonged to one V. Ahammed. When there was no failure on the part of
the assessee to disclose any material fact, original assessment cannot be corrected in
reassessment proceedings.