Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs L.F. D'Silva on 27 September, 1991
To the similar effect is the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. L.F. D'Silva (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee wherein it was held that the scope of proceedings under Section 263 has to be ascertained with reference to the purpose and basis of initiation of the proceedings.
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by both the sides at the time of hearing before us, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue" is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Explaining further, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that understood in its ordinary meaning, the said expression is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax.
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Aps Electro Stampings (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 November, 1997
In the case of S.S.I. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee, it was held by Chennai Bench of Tribunal that proceedings under Section 263 has to be strictly confined to the notice issued invoking the jurisdiction under that section for the reasons stated therein and law does not permit expanding proceedings under Section 263 after its initiation beyond what is stated in the notice itself. It was also held that whether the impugned assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is to be judged only with reference to the reasons stated in the notice issued at the time of invoking the jurisdiction under Section 263 and it is impermissible to extend the proceedings by resorting to issue subsequent communications to the assessee. It was held that in respect of a proceeding under Section 263, the bedrock on which the entire proceedings rests is the show-cause notice and so the proceedings under Section 263 has to be strictly confined to the notice issued invoking the jurisdiction under Section 263 for the reasons stated therein. In the said case, the question as to whether the increase due to the exchange fluctuation was revenue in nature was not even in the mind of the CIT when he had issued the notice and as the said issue was not part of the show-cause notice issued initially by the CIT under Section 263 on 22nd Dec, 2003, it was held by the Tribunal that it was not permissible to expand the said notice by resort to letters as done therein observing that if the same is permitted, then there would be no end to the proceedings and it will go on expanded and expanded which is not permissible under law. It was held that the law does not permit expanding proceedings under Section 263 after its initiation beyond what is stated in the notice itself.
Smt. Lajja Wati Singhal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 January, 1997
Following these two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held in the case of Smt. Lajja Wati Singhal v. CIT that an assessment made on income surrendered by the assessee without making any enquiry whether the same was in fact taxable in his hands was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Cit Alcatel on 20 September, 1993
CIT , Duggal & Co. v. CIT , it is incumbent on the AO to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would make such an enquiry prudent and his order becomes erroneous if such an enquiry has not been made. Moreover, as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Addl.
Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Mukur Corporation on 18 December, 1975
CIT v. Mukur Corporation , an order of assessment passed by the AO without making necessary enquiries on certain important points connected with the assessment would be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sattandas Mohandas Sidhi on 23 June, 1997
In the case of CIT v. Sattandas Mohandas Sidhi (1998) 147 CTR (MP) 505 : (1998) 230 ITR 591 (MP) and in the case of Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 135 CTR (Guj) 399 : (1996) 221 ITR 861 (Guj), it has been held that a vague notice issued under Section 263 without giving any reason as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. As a matter of fact, the contents of the said notice clearly indicate that fishing or roving enquiries were sought to be made by the learned CIT in the matter of taxability of capital gain, if any, arising from the sale of her business and brand name by the assessee. It is by now well-settled that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the learned CIT only if, on examination of records of any proceedings under the Act, he considers that any order passed by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is not an arbitrary or uncharted power. It can be exercised only on fulfilment of the requirements laid down in Section 263(1) and the consideration of the CIT as to whether an order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be based on materials on record of the proceedings called for and examined by him. The CIT cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well-settled policies of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings and stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage. A lapse of time must induce, repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies.
Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 November, 1998
In the case of CIT v. Sattandas Mohandas Sidhi (1998) 147 CTR (MP) 505 : (1998) 230 ITR 591 (MP) and in the case of Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 135 CTR (Guj) 399 : (1996) 221 ITR 861 (Guj), it has been held that a vague notice issued under Section 263 without giving any reason as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. As a matter of fact, the contents of the said notice clearly indicate that fishing or roving enquiries were sought to be made by the learned CIT in the matter of taxability of capital gain, if any, arising from the sale of her business and brand name by the assessee. It is by now well-settled that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the learned CIT only if, on examination of records of any proceedings under the Act, he considers that any order passed by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is not an arbitrary or uncharted power. It can be exercised only on fulfilment of the requirements laid down in Section 263(1) and the consideration of the CIT as to whether an order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be based on materials on record of the proceedings called for and examined by him. The CIT cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving enquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. Such action will be against the well-settled policies of law that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings and stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage. A lapse of time must induce, repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies.