Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Kaushalya And Athers (Legal ... on 14 January, 1992
In the case of Trishul Enterprises ITA No.384 & 385/Mum/2014, the
Mumbai Bench of ITAT followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court in the case of Smt.Kaushalya (supra).
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S Maharaj Garage & Co.Nagpur vs Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 August, 2017
Reliance was placed on
Pa g e | 5
Shyam Sundar Hazra
ITA No.2510/Kol/2018
Assessment Year: 2011-12
two decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya
216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated
22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the
learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not
furnished.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Raghunath Cotton Ginning And Oil ... on 26 October, 2004
6. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the written
submissions and the case laws relied upon by the Ld. DR. We find the same set of
written submissions were filed before the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in
the case of Jeetmal Choraria in ITA 956/KOL/16 for AY 2010-11, wherein the
Coordinate Bench elaborately discussed the facts in the decisions as relied upon
by the Ld. DR and the principle laid down by the respective Hon'ble High Courts
at Bombay and Patna and preferred to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning supra by
taking support of the established principle for a proposition when there are two
views on the issue, one in the favouring of assessee should be adopted, which
enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products
ltd reported in 88 ITR 192 (SC). We are in agreement with the
reasoning of the Co-ordinate Bench in its order dt: 01-12-2017 in the
case of Jeetmal Choraria and the same is reproduced herein below for ready
reference:
Earthmoving Equipment Service ... vs Dcit 22( 2), Mumbai on 2 May, 2017
In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the
ITAT Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of
Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty
in that case was deleted for so many reasons and not solely on the basis of
defect in show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xx on 18 February, 2011
"7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the
case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has
taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction
about concealment of income must be in specific terms and words and that
satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words
recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action. In our view this decision
is on the question of recording satisfaction and not in the context of specific
charge in the mandatory show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit (Osd)-Ii Cen Rg-7, Mumbai on 21 March, 2017
7. Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Dhanraj Mills (P) Ltd vs ACIT(OSD)
Central Range-s, Mumbai on 21 March 2017 has stated As there is no
declaration of law which may be governed by Article 141 of the Constitution of
India in the case of CITVersus SSA'S Emerald Meadows dismissed by Hon'ble
Apex Court, vide SLP (CC No. 11485/2016) on 05/08/2016.