Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.76 seconds)
Redex Protech Ltd.,, Ahmedabad. vs Department Of Income Tax cites

Dhara Jagdishchandra Patel, , ... vs Cit, A'Bad-Iii,, Ahmedabad on 3 May, 2017

8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view, the return filed by the assessee on 30-03-1998 cannot be ignored as it is filed within 1 year of the end of the assessment year within the meaning of Section 139(4). It is undisputed fact that return filed by the assessee on 30-07-1997 is not the return filed under Section 139(1) or under section 142(1). The view of the Learned. A.R. is that the return filed after expiry of time given u/s. 139(1) would be a belated return but this cannot take away a right of the assessee to file another return under section 139(4). If a person who has not filed a return at all under section 139(1) or 142(1) or otherwise, can be given a right to file a return under section 139(4), then there is no reason that another person who has filed a belated return is deprived of such right. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Kumar Jagdishchandra Sinha Vs. CIT 1996 220 ITR 67 (SC) that assessee cannot file a revised return under section 139(5) in a case where a return is filed under section 139(4). Certainly, the return filed by the assessee on 30-07-1997 is a return filed under section 139(4) as it is not the return under section 139(1) or 142(1). Therefore, assessee looses the right to file another return under section 139(4). Such an assessee also looses the right to file a return under section 139(5) as the belated return on 30-07-1997 is not the return under section 139(1) or 142(1). Accordingly the return filed by the assessee on 30-03-1998 cannot be treated as a valid return and therefore Assessing Officer cannot act upon as such return.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 44 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Kisan Discretionary Family Trust vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 November, 2007

3. Kisan Discretionary Family Trust Vs .Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax[2008] 113 TTJ 918(AHD) ( ITAT, AHMEDABAD 'A' BENCH) Coming to the first finding that after offering income in the revised return, which was not withdrawn by the appellant, it is respectfully submitted that the fact that appellant has offered income in the revised return of income cannot preclude and appellant can raise such contentions before learned CIT(A) or before Hon'ble Tribunal. At the outset it is submitted that the income was offered in the revised return on a "without prejudice" basis.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 110 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 December, 1996

This appellant's appeal before the CIT(A) was allowed. However, the order of the further appeal of the Department before the Tribunal was allowed. The appellant has approached this Court and has submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in upholding the AO's order. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 157 CTR (SC) 249: [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC), to contend that it was open to the assessee to raise the points of law even before the Tribunal. The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under s. 254 of the IT Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the facts on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised are before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the AO to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In 8 ITA No.824/Ahd/2004 (Assessment Year 1996-1997) the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under s. 254 of the IT Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 1462 - Full Document
1   2 Next