Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (7.42 seconds)
Shree Bansidhar Spinning And Weaving ... vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 11 January, 1980
cites
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Gemini Leather Stores vs The Income Tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Agra ... on 1 May, 1975
In Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1, the Supreme Court has dealt with the problem of s. 147(a) and there the fact as were that in the proceedings for the original assessment of the appellant-firm, though the appellant did not disclose certain transactions evidenced by certain drafts, the officer himself discovered the facts relating thereto but by oversight did not bring the amounts represented by the drafts to tax as the income of the appellant. Subsequently, the ITO issued a notice under s. 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, with a view to assess the amounts as the appellant's income from undisclosed sources. On a writ petition filed by the appellant, the High Court held that the ITO did not apply his mind to the question whether the amounts could be treated as part of the total income of the appellant and as the appellant did not disclose the source of those amounts which were not recorded in the account books, all the conditions for invoking the jurisdiction under s. 147(a) were present. Reversing the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that after discovery of the primary facts relating to the transactions evidenced by the drafts it was for the officer to make the necessary inquiries and draw proper inferences as to whether the amounts represented by the drafts could be treated as part of the total income of the appellant. That the officer did not do. It was plainly a case of oversight and it could not be said that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts. He could not, therefore, take recourse to s. 147(a) to remedy the error resulting from his own oversight.
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 14 December, 1973
and it was point out from the decision in Calcutta Discount Co.'s case [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC), that once all the primary facts were before the assessing authority, he required no further assistance by way of disclosure. It was for him to decide what inferences or facts could be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It was not for somebody else-far less the assessee-to tell the assessing authority what inferences, whether of facts or law, should be drawn. Indeed, when it is remembered that people often different as regards what inference should be drawn from given facts, it would be meaningless to demand that the assessee must disclose what inferences-whether of facts or law he should draw from the primary facts. At page 10, Khanna J. further observed :
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350, the observations being at page 357, it was held that the method enjoined for the purpose of ascertaining the written down value while granting depreciation allowance was that the ITO should take into consideration the actual cost determining it for himself, if necessary, taking into consideration the allowance granted in the past and then make his own computation as to the written down value for the assessment year with which he was concerned. Hence, it was obvious that if the ITO who passed the assessment order as in the case of the petitioner-company in that case at the time of the original assessments for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, had followed that method which was enjoined upon him and had taken into consideration the actual cost determining it for himself if necessary and had taken also into consideration the allowances granted in the past (inclusive of the initial allowance) and then had made his own computation as to the written down value for the assessment year with which he was concerned, it was obvious that no excess depreciation allowance would have been granted by him. Thus, even if the assessee furnishes his statement regarding depreciation, it is for the ITO concerned and that duty is enjoined upon him under the provisions of the Act, to work out the correct figure of depreciation for himself starting from the actual cost and, if necessary, work out the actual cost for himself and then working out the depreciation allowance granted in the past and then arrive at the computation for the depreciation allowance for the particular assessment year with which he was dealing at the moment. If he has not done so, then, he has to thank himself. If all the figures which would enable the ITO to arrive at the correct amount of depreciation have been furnished by the assessee, the rest has to be done by the ITO himself and to say that the pointed attention of the ITO at the time of the original assessment was not drawn to this or that particular feature is no ground for reopening the assessment.