Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 246 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel vs G.V. Shah, Income-Tax Officer, Rajkot ... on 22 June, 1973
In Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel v. G.V. Shah, ITO [1975] 98 ITR 255 the Gujarat High Court pointed out that even after an appeal from an order of assessment is decided by the AAC, a mistake in that part of the order of assessment which was not the subject-matter of review by the AAC and was left untouched by him, could be rectified by the ITO because the mistake would be his own mistake which he could always correct under the section. The position is not the same in the present case, because the Gujarat High Court dealt with the matter relating to the assessment where a particular matter which was considered for rectification by the ITO had not been the subject-matter of appeal before the AAC. That decision has, therefore, no scope for application.
Section 251 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs K. R. M. T. T. Thiagaraja Chetty & Co on 14 October, 1953
10. Learned counsel for the revenue contended that there is no merger in this case because there is nothing to show that the AAC has considered and decided the question of the quantum of penalty. We had recently an occasion to go into the question of the applicability of the doctrine of merger of an order of inferior authority in an order of superior authority in CIT v. City Palaycot Company (T.C. No. 378 of 1975, in the judgment dated July 6, 1979) [since ]. In that case, the ITO had not levied any amount as and by way of interest under s, 217 of the Act in the assessment order. There was an appeal against the assessment order, and the appeal was disposed of by the AAC. Later on, the CIT took proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and the question was whether the order of the ITO had got merged in the order of the AAC so that the Commissioner could not exercise his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.
The Advocates Act, 1961
State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966
In dealing with this aspect, we observed, after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. and also of the Gujarat High Court in Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel v. G.V. Shah, ITO [1975] 98 ITR 255, as follows :