Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.48 seconds)

Dhfl Venture Capital Fund vs Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1 on 14 June, 2013

based on the contingency of outcome of the appeal proceedings in the case of Mr. Rajendran Pillai, which does not meet the requirement that income should escaped assessment. However, such and exercise is permissible in the case of regular assessment not in the case of reassessment proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DHLF Venture Capital Fund v. ITO [2013] 358 ITR 471. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court are extracted as below: -

Chhugamal Rajpal vs S. P. Chaliha & Ors on 21 January, 1971

11.2 qReassessment proceedings were initiated merely on the basis of 'reason to suspect' and not 'reason to believe' for the purpose of making fishing and roving enquiries in connection with the various items depicted in the regular books of account of the Assessee-not permissible - reliance placed on Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC); Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel vs. Income Tax Officer (2011) 79 CCH 0204 (Guj). Reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. A.O on the basis of the satisfaction borrowed from the unverified information received from the Investigation Wing without any independent application of mind and without conducting any such independent enquiry/investigation by the Ld. 10 ITA No. 115 & CO 15/Coch/2024 Sreevalsam Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 350 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 3 Next