Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.47 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80HH in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80I in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5 vs M/S Jet Airways (India) Ltd. on 16 November, 2021
As the above addition is deleted, the other additions made
do not survive in view of the ratio laid down in case of CIT Vs Jet
Airways Ltd 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and that of jurisdictional High Court
in case of M/s. CIT-III Vs Swarna Andhra IJMII Integrated Township
Pvt Limited in ITTA No.165 of 2014, dt. 12.03.2014. Accordingly, the
other additions made are deleted. The appellant succeeds on the
grounds raised against above addition."
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 5 September, 2019
19. Now, coming to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in
the case of CIT vs. M/s. Swarna Andhra IJMII Integrated Township
Development Private Limited (supra), in fact, this judgment was
sought to be distinguished by the ld. DR. However, we do not agree
with the reasoning given by the ld. DR, as the jurisdictional High
Court has approved the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court in the case of Jet Airways (supra) and the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in the case of Ranbaxy (supra).
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs Mohmed Juned on 29 January, 2013
We are of the view that the Explanation-3 to Section 147 of the Income Tax
Act on the given facts and circumstances of the case does not apply.
Moreover, in which case and when Explanation-3 would be applicable has
been decided by various High Courts, namely, Bombay High Court in case
of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd., (331 ITR 236); Delhi High Court in case of
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (336 ITR 136); Chhattisgarh High Court
in case of ACIT Vs. Major Deepak Mehta (344 ITR 641) and Gujarat High
Court in case of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani. In view of the consistent
decision of these High Courts, we are not in a position to take a different
view and the learned Tribunal has followed the consistent view of those
High Courts. Even, we find that independent of the decision of those High
14
B. Ramalinga Raju
Courts that the Explanation-3 will be applicable in case where live issue,
which was subsisting at the time of original assessment and if such issue
has escaped the determination of the Assessing Officer, can be a ground for
reopening. Any new issue that has cropped up subsequently on new set of
facts, the aforesaid Explanation has no application. We think that the
Explanation-3 has not really diluted cardinal object of Section 147 of the
Income Tax Act for reopening. The Explanation-3 has been given a
retrospective effect with an idea there are so many assessment orders,
which were passed earlier without deciding the issue subsisting at the time
of original assessment. This Explanation has held to be reopened in those
cases.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Atlas Cycle Industries Limited on 20 August, 2010
The decision in Atlas Cycle Industries' case
(supra) held that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed
with the reassessment, once he found that the two grounds mentioned in
the notice under section 148 were incorrect or non-existent.