Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.37 seconds)Venkatakrishna Rice Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 March, 1981
In his support, he strongly relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 and the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 129 and the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Kanda Rice Mills [ 1989] 178 ITR 446.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kanda Rice Mills on 1 February, 1989
Similarly, the Punbjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kanda Rice Mills's (supra), has held as under:
The Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd vs C.I.T., West Bengal, Calcutta on 29 March, 1972
Besides this, he also relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal reported as Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 50 TTJ (Cal.)
Chaudhry Cotton Ginning And Pressing ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 23 March, 1982
281, Mittal Cotton Factory v. ITO [1983] 15 TTJ (Chd.)
Bajaj Auto Employees Welfare Fund No. 1 vs Income-Tax Officer on 2 November, 1993
80, and Bajaj Auto Employees' Welfare Fund v. ITO [1987] 27 TTJ (All.)
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
Ltd. v. ITO [1994] 49 ITD 348 (Bom.) and 41 ITD 539. His further submission was that before passing any order under Section 263, the CIT must show errors either factually or legally and further must show that on account of such errors the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. According to him no order can be passed in the name of enquiry unless it points out in what respect Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry. He further submitted that the High Court judgments relied upon by the CIT are distinguishable.
Indian Textiles vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 February, 1985
In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Indian Textiles v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 112, Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Emery Stone Mfg. Co. [1995] 213 ITR 843 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84.
Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Emery Stone Mfg. Co. on 5 December, 1984
The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (supra) also does not help the case of the revenue. In that case the Assessing Officer has framed the assessment without applying his mind to the applicability of the provisions of Explanation 3 to Section 43 (1). This case is also distinguishable since in the present case it is not the case of the revenue that Assessing Officer had failed to apply his mind to any of the relevant provisions of the IT Act.
Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 1 May, 1967
In the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi (supra), the action of CIT under Section 263 was upheld by the Supreme Court on the ground that the Assessing Officer had passed a short stereotyped order without making any enquiry in respect to the genuineness of the initial capital introduced by the assessee and the gifts received by her at the time of her marriage. In that case, the return had been filed for the first time. In view of these facts, it was the duty of the ITO to make an enquiry to ascertain the genuiness of the initial capital as well as the gifts received by her. Since the ITO had failed to make the enquiry, the order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous. But in the present case the CIT has not pointed out anything in respect of what enquiry was required to be made. Hence this judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.