Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.72 seconds)Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commr.Of Income Tax,New Delhi vs M/S Realest Builders & Services Ltd on 7 May, 2008
A.O.
may determine the true income as per his best judgment. In the assessment
order, nowhere Assessing Officer has expressed his difficulty either about
the method or about the completeness of the accounts which can create an
hindrance in computing the true income. The assessee has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engineering
for the proposition that Department cannot change the method of accounting
if the same is revenue neutral and it has been followed in earlier years. We
also find that assessee has placed reliance for the principles of consistency
on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Realest
Builders & Services Ltd. reported in 307 ITR 202, CIT Vs. Wood World
Governor reported in 312 ITR 254. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that accounting method followed by an assessee continuously for a
given period of time has to be presumed to be correct till the Assessing
17
Officer comes to the conclusion for reasons to be given that system does not
reflect true and correct profit. Learned First Appellate Authority has
considered all these aspects in the impugned order and thereafter deleted the
addition.
Commr.Of Income Tax,Simla vs M/S Green World Corporation on 6 May, 2009
A.O.
may determine the true income as per his best judgment. In the assessment
order, nowhere Assessing Officer has expressed his difficulty either about
the method or about the completeness of the accounts which can create an
hindrance in computing the true income. The assessee has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triveni Engineering
for the proposition that Department cannot change the method of accounting
if the same is revenue neutral and it has been followed in earlier years. We
also find that assessee has placed reliance for the principles of consistency
on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Realest
Builders & Services Ltd. reported in 307 ITR 202, CIT Vs. Wood World
Governor reported in 312 ITR 254. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that accounting method followed by an assessee continuously for a
given period of time has to be presumed to be correct till the Assessing
17
Officer comes to the conclusion for reasons to be given that system does not
reflect true and correct profit. Learned First Appellate Authority has
considered all these aspects in the impugned order and thereafter deleted the
addition.
Director Of Income Tax vs Modern Charitable Foundation on 18 May, 2011
He also
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
Director of Income-tax vs. Modern Charitable Foundation (2011) -TIOL-
Killick Nixon Limited vs Dcit on 6 March, 2012
Learned
Assessing Officer miserably failed to appreciate this aspect, and observed
that it is a bogus and sham transaction. He has not assigned any reason for
such conclusion. Learned DR also pointed out that it is a colourable device.
According to him, it should be appreciated in the light of human probability
and he referred three decisions, namely, Sumiti Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801,
Killick Nixon Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) - TIOL - 190 (H.C. Gupta ), XYZ
India (2012) 20 Taxman.com.89.
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995
Learned
Assessing Officer miserably failed to appreciate this aspect, and observed
that it is a bogus and sham transaction. He has not assigned any reason for
such conclusion. Learned DR also pointed out that it is a colourable device.
According to him, it should be appreciated in the light of human probability
and he referred three decisions, namely, Sumiti Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801,
Killick Nixon Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) - TIOL - 190 (H.C. Gupta ), XYZ
India (2012) 20 Taxman.com.89.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai vs M/S Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd on 27 February, 2008
He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of CIT vs. Bilahari Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 299
ITR 1.
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs Mayur Polypack Pvt Ltd - Opponent(S) on 8 March, 2011
(ii) CIT vs. Neo Polypack Ltd., 245 ITR 492 (Del.),
6
Held, that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to
income-tax proceedings since each assessment year is
independent of the other but where an issue had been
decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier
assessment years, for the sake of consistency the same
view should continue to prevail for subsequent years
unless there is material change in the fact."