Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.36 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 194A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of India vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 November, 2022
(d) State Bank of India vs Commissioner of Income-tax (2016) 389 ITR
578 (Guj. HC);
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. on 22 April, 1993
Therefore, in fact, the assessing officer has
followed the judicial discipline as mentioned in the judgement of Thane
Electricity Supply Ltd. (supra), therefore, the plea raised by the ld. D.R. for the
Revenue is hereby rejected.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Assistant Commnr., Income Tax, Rajkot vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd on 15 September, 2008
there is no violation of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Saurastra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra).We are of the view that
the judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of
Katlary Karayana (supra), is not binding on the assessing officer, as we have
stated that this judgement is in different context of section 194A of the Act and
specially it is in the context of income escaped assessment u/s 147 of the Act,
therefore, the ratio of the judgement does not apply to the assessee, under
consideration. So far as the judicial discipline is concerned, there is no violation
of the judicial discipline, by the assessing officer. Considering the above facts and
circumstances, we state that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing
officer made enough inquiry by issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and in
response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted details,
documents and explanation before the assessing officer and the assessing officer
having examined the details and documents of the assessee, has taken the
plausible view, which is sustainable in the eyes of law, as we have explained
above. The Ld. PCIT while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, also
referred Clause (d) of Explanation - 2 of Section 263 of the Act wherein it is
stated that if the order has not been passed by the Assessing Officer in
accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee and rendered
by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of assessee or any
other person.
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 56 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
Therefore, considering these facts, the Assessing Officer has taken a
plausible view which is sustainable in the eye of law, as per the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra).Since the
order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as
prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts and circumstances, narrated
above, the usurpation of jurisdiction exercising revisional jurisdiction by the
Principal CIT is ''null'' in the eyes of law and, therefore, we are inclined to
quash the very assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263
by the Principal CIT. Therefore, we quash the order of the Principal CIT dated
10.03.2023, being ab initio void.