Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Sejal Gems P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai on 5 January, 2018 cites

Consolidated Finvest & Holdings Ltd., ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 22 May, 2017

In this connection, reliance is placed on judicial precedents in the cases of EMA India Ltd. v. ACIT 226 CTR (All) 659 and Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. v. ACIT 281 ITR 394 (Del.) wherein it has been held that the principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for reopening completed assessment would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer has applied his mind and taken a conscious decision on particular matter in issue and not where the order of assessment does not address itself to the aspect which is the basis for reopening of the assessment. Following the same legal principle, it cannot be said even in the instant case that there was any application of mind on part of the AO on this issue at the time of previous assessments and, therefore, the reopening of said assessment in these circumstances cannot be said to be based on change of opinion. 4.3.3 As regards the appellant's objections to the reopening of its assessment, it is found that the AO had disposed of the same vide a speaking order passed on 16.03.2015. The reasons recorded by the AO are found to be having a live link with the formation of his belief. The belief entertained by the AO was that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds rather than on gossip, rumour or suspicion. Thus, there is no hesitation in holding that the requirements of section 147 were fully satisfied in the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer, 'G' Ward And Ors. vs Selected Dalurband Coal Co. P. Ltd. on 24 December, 1976

"Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to lax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the AO has cause or justification to know or suppose (hat income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the AO should have finally ascertained the fact by legal statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Managnese Ore Co, ltd. v. ITO(1991) 191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfillment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief Whether the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the AO is within the realm of subjective satisfaction ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co, (P.)
Calcutta High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 189 - Full Document

Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995

This proposition is duly supported by Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). In the present case, the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and, thus, bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of Hon'ble Apex Court decisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1298 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Durga Prasad More on 26 August, 1971

17. I further find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (in Writ petition no 2860, order dt. 18.6.2014) has upheld 100% allowance for the purchases said to be bogus when the sales have not been doubted. However, the facts of that case were different. Furthermore, the sales in that case were basically to government departments. Hence, the ratio from this decision is not applicable on the facts of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1107 - Full Document

N.K. Industries Ltd vs Dy.C.I.T. - Opponent(S) on 18 October, 2005

In these circumstances, the learned Departmental Representative has referred to Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Tax Appeal No. 240 of 2003 in 11 ITA No. 3872/Mum/2017 (A.Y.2010-11) M/s. Sejal Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT the case of N K Industries vs. Dy. CIT vide order dated 20.06.2016, wherein 100% of the bogus purchases was held to be added in the hands of the assessee and tribunals restriction of the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases was set aside. It was expounded that when purchase bills have been found to be bogus, 100% disallowance was required. The special leave petition against this order along with others has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.1.2017.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 127 - Full Document
1