Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.68 seconds)Section 80HHC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
filed by the assessee after he accepted the return under Section 143(1) without
scrutiny, and nothing more. This is nothing but a review of the earlier proceedings
and an abuse of power by the Assessing Officer, both strongly deprecated by the
Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator (supra). The reasons recorded by the Assessing
ITA No.555/2012 Page 13 of 14
Officer in the present case do confirm our apprehension about the harm that a less
strict interpretation of the words "reason to believe" vis-à-vis an intimation issued
under section 143(1) can cause to the tax regime. There is no whisper in the reasons
recorded, of any tangible material which came to the possession of the assessing
officer subsequent to the issue of the intimation. It reflects an arbitrary exercise of the
power conferred under section 147.
Sheo Nath Singh vs Appellate Assistant Commissioner ... on 12 August, 1971
In Sheo Nath Singh vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (1971) 82 ITR
147 the Supreme Court (Hegde J) observed as under:-
Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Dist, Vi, ... vs Lakhmani Mewal Das on 30 March, 1976
11. The entire law as to what would constitute "reason to believe" was summed up
by H.R.Khanna, J, speaking for the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v Lakhmani
Mewaldas (1976) 103 ITR 437. The following principles were laid down:-