Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)
Ge Grid (Switzerland) Gmbh vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 24 February, 2025 cites

Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh,Agra vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 November, 1991

"19. We are aware that each assessment year is separate and distinct and principle of res judicata does not apply to 9 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4282 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1294/2022 and connected matters Page 10 of 13 By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:28.02.2025 14:45:40 proceedings for subsequent or other years. However, the decision on an issue or question though not binding should be followed and not ignored unless there are good and sufficient reasons to take a different view. Thus, it was/is possible for the Assessing Officer to depart from the finding or a decision in one year as it is final and conclusive only in relation to a particular year for which it is made but as observed in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), when a fundamental aspect pervading through different assessment years has been found as a fact in one way or the other, it would inappropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year particularly when the said finding has been accepted. The said principle is also based upon the rules of certainty and consistency that a decision taken after due application of mind should be followed consistently as this lead to certainty, unless there are valid and good reasons for deviating and not accepting the earlier decision."
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1110 - R B Misra - Full Document

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 17 December, 1997

"17. Contrary to the above, it had been the consistent stand of the present writ petitioners that no PE had existed in the years in question. It is in the aforesaid light that we would have to evaluate and examine whether the findings as recorded in the course of the 2007 or 2019 survey could have been blindly applied and adopted, extrapolated and read as being an accurate recordal of facts as they obtained in the AYs in question. It was conceded before us by the respondents that the reasons as recorded in support of the formation of opinion that income had escaped assessment had not alluded to any facts specific to AYs' 2013-14 to 2017-18. Despite repeated queries Mr. Bhatia who represented the respondents failed to draw our attention to any facet or fact pertaining to the AYs' in question and which could have been read as demonstrative of an application of mind to the facts that prevailed or obtained in the years in question and thus justified a reassessment action being validly initiated. In fact, as we go through those reasons, it becomes more than apparent that the AO has merely proceeded to adopt and reiterate what was found in the course of the survey undertaken in 2007 and 2019 read alongside the judgment of this Court rendered in GE Energy. According to Mr. Bhatia, in light of the judgment of this Court in GE Energy, the AO was justified in proceeding on the "assumption" that facts had remained unchanged and that the business model had remained unaltered. Learned counsel in this respect also sought to draw sustenance from the decision of the Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v ITO6 and to the following passages as appearing therein:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 717 - Full Document
1   2 Next