Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)
Saheli Synthetics (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 October, 1995 cites

Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992

The learned D.R. submitted that after the assessment was set aside in toto all the issues were open before the Assessing Officer and he was entitled to probe into all aspects while framing reassessment. The learned D.R. submitted that in the course of de novo assessment the Assessing Officer noted that the excise duty amounting to Rs. 81,62,606 collected by the assessee but not deposited in the Govt. A/c. was disallowable under Section 43B of the Act and he accordingly made the impugned addition of Rs. 81,62,606, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. and Sinclair Murray & Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 2319 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta vs Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria on 7 April, 1967

5.1 Coming to the two cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, viz., Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria's case (supra) and S. V. Divakar's case (supra) it is noted that the Supreme Court in the first case has held that the A.A.C. has no jurisdiction to assess a source of income which has not been processed by the Assessing Officer and which is not disclosed either in the return filed by the assessee or in the assessment order and the A.A.C. therefore cannot travel beyond the subject-matter of the assessment. The same decision has been relied upon by the Orissa High Court in the case of S. V. Divakar (suprd), Both the above-noted cases related to cases of restricted set aside. In the case before us the CIT(A) has not tried to assess any new source of income. In fact, his order is silent so far as the taxability of the excise duty is concerned but he has set aside the assessment in toto and when the assessment was set aside in toto, nothing prevented the Assessing Officer from conducting investigation during the course of reassessment proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 239 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs S.V. Divakar (Through Legal Heir ... on 14 May, 1992

In fact, in the case of S. V. Divakar (supra) the Orissa High Court has held that the principle that the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction to tax a new source of income while making an assessment in pursuance of an order of remand, applies where there is a specific direction given in the order of remand. The High Court further held that where, however, the remand is an open one, the Assessing Officer shall not be restricted to any particular source and all the relevant aspects can be taken into consideration by him including any new source of income which was not the subject-matter of assessment earlier. In short, the scope of fresh assessment following the appellate order depends on the subject-matter of the appeal and the appellate order read as a whole in its proper context (see pages 917G, H, 918A, G). Read as a whole we hold that order dated 5-2-1992 passed by the CIT(A) was an open one and accordingly the Assessing Officer was justified in bringing to tax a new source of income while framing the de novo assessment. We, accordingly, reject the ground raised by the assessee.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate on 30 April, 1964

5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on record. We have very carefully gone through the order of the CIT(A) dated 5-2-1992 setting aside the original assessment order. His conclusion has been reproduced by us in para-2 above. A plain reading of the remarks of the CIT(A) reveals that the entire assessment was set aside by him and accordingly we do not agree with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the assessee that it was a case of restricted set aside. No doubt, that the issue relating to the excise duty collected by the assessee and not deposited in the Govt. A/c was not before the CIT(A) when he was adjudicating upon the original assessment order but all the same since substantial additions were challenged before him and it was the contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) that the additions/disallowances were made in a arbitrary manner without adducing any material in support of his action by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) set aside the entire assessment. Once the assessment was set aside, the entire assessment stood open before the Assessing Officer and he was not only free but required by law to probe into the case afresh on all aspects and arrive at a judicially correct conclusion. The CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the assessment in toto and in this connection we would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225. The three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that "If an appeal lies, Section 31 of the Act describes the powers of the A.A.C. in such an appeal. Under Section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the A.A.C. may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under Clause (b) thereof he may set aside the assessment and direct the ITO to make a fresh assessment. The A.A.C. has therefore, plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his power is coterminous with that of the ITO.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 429 - Full Document
1