Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)
H. E. H. The Nizams Jeweller Trust vs Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax ... on 21 November, 1996
cites
Section 17 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 31 August, 1979
However, in a subsequent decision, the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996, held that the said proposition given in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. [1976] 102 ITR 287 (SC), was stated too widely and an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material does not give him that power. Apart from this, it is well settled that there should be a nexus between the material on record and the belief that wealth has escaped assessment before the Assessing Officer can get the jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 17.
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
The Supreme Court observed in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 that :
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
The requirement of recording the reasons is only to ascertain whether such material existed which can lead to the belief of the Assessing Officer that wealth has escaped assessment. The acceptation of the expression "has reasons to believe" is that the Assessing Officer cannot rely on material other than what is recorded for the purpose of issuing the notice under section 17. In the present case, the only reason given was that the trustees had not filed a separate return in respect of the residue assessable under section 21(1A). When that reason fails, it is not possible for the Revenue to justify the notice on the basis of the reasons not recorded, because, if we accept such unrecorded reasons, it would be in violation of the safeguard provided in the proviso to section 17. (see also Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851). We are, therefore, unable to sustain the notices issued under section 17. The impugned notices are, therefore, quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.