Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), ... vs S.S.M. Finishing Centre on 6 March, 1990
A contrary view was taken by this court in CIT v. S. S. M. Finishing Centre [1985] 155 ITR 791 and CIT v. S. S. M. Finishing Centre [1990] 186 ITR 597 (Mad). Therefore, when two interpretations or two views are possible, the audit party cannot point out that the assessee's activities do not constitute manufacture or production. All the materials were placed before the Income-tax Officer while making the original assessment. The pointing out, viz., that the assessee is not a manufacturer or a producer would virtually amount to interpretation of the provisions contained in Sections 32 and 33 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the reopening was done on a mere change of opinion.
Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 31 August, 1979
Further, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT , on the basis of the audit report, it is not possible for the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the reopening under Section 147(b) of the Act is bad, is in order. Accordingly, we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative and against the department.
Section 32 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sovrin Knit Works on 11 November, 1992
8. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Department submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the reopening was done on a mere change of opinion. It was submitted that the audit party has pointed out only the factual position that the assessee is only processing the textiles and not manufacturing or producing the same. Bleaching and finishing of raw cloth as well as dyeing and finishing of cloth and yarn would amount to manufacture or production depending upon different interpretations. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sovrin Knit Works [FB], held that dyeing, bleaching, printing and embroidering of grey cloth constitute production and manufacture in terms of item 32 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs S.S.M. Processing Mills on 27 March, 1996
On similar facts a similar view was taken by this court in T. C. No. 809 of 1983 by a judgment dated March 27, 1996, in the case of CIT v. S. S. M. Processing Mills [1997] 227 ITR 596. Therefore, on the merits, the assessee is not entitled to initial depreciation and higher development rebate since the
assessee is not either manufacturing or producing textiles. Accordingly, we answer the first question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department.
1