Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)The Bombay Abkari Act, 1878
Al. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 August, 1972
2. Al.Vr.St. Veerappa Chettiar v. CIT [1973] 91 ITR 116 (Mad.),
Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Dist, Vi, ... vs Lakhmani Mewal Das on 30 March, 1976
3. ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC),
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Simon Carves Limited on 17 August, 1976
4. CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 212 (SC),
Indian Oil Corporation vs Income Tax Officer, Central Circle V, ... on 8 May, 1986
Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO [1986] 159 ITR 956 (SC),
Surajmal Ganeshram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 June, 1979
7. Chunnital Surajmal v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 141 (Pat),
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
8. Equitable Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1988] 174 ITR 714 (Cal.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs K. Kesava Reddiar on 10 February, 1989
He relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. K. Kesaua Reddiar [1989] 178 ITR 457. It is not as if the ITO was changing his views on the same set of facts when he was in seisin of reassessment. He looked into each and every aspect of the case and held that in the absence of verifiable records for in the absence of need for incurring the expenditure certain disallowances were called for and he made such disallowances. It cannot be construed as a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts. Such a proposition may be relevant for testing the initiation of reassessment proceedings but once the reassessment is made, certainly the ITO can look in great detail and need not confine himself to escaped income only. On merits, he supported the disallowances.