Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.06 seconds)Section 269C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 269A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 269 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 269D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Asoke Kumar Sen vs Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle-V, ... on 22 March, 1980
In Asoke Kumar Sen vs. Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle-V,
New Delhi and Anr., 132 ITR 707, this Court had an occasion to
interpret the expression „if the income-tax officer has reason to believe‟
appearing in Section 147(a) of the Act. The Court was of the opinion
that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based
upon reasonable grounds and that the ITO may act under that section on
direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or
rumour. The powers under that section were treated as not plenary in
nature but subject to judicial review. The Court set aside the order when
it found that the income-tax officer had merely stated his belief but had
not set out any material on the basis of which he formed such belief. In
the present case, the nature of exercise carried out by the competent
authority is identical.
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Arun Mehra on 14 March, 1985
12. Mr. Aggarwal has also referred to the judgment of this Court in
CIT vs. Arun Mehra, 157 ITR 308, wherein the authoritative principle
laid down is that there must be material before the competent authority
showing that the fair market value was more than 15% above the upper
end consideration. The Court also pointed out that the competent
authority had acted in a stereotype and routine manner and he should
have at least examined the valuation report about the difference between
two prices (as in that case the competent authority was confronted with
two valuation reports). Following observations from the said judgment
may also be usefully quoted:-