Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.38 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shankar Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central on 21 March, 1978
(i) As has been held in the case of Shankar Industries v. CIT as per the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the onus lies on the assessee to prove the case prima facie in case of Section 68 which has not been done in the impugned case. It has been rightly held by the Assessing Officer that when the case was decided ex parte despite several opportunities granted and the assessee could not prove it to be the opening balance in subsequent year, the case becomes weakened for the assessee in the impugned appeal. Even the same view has been held by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
Section 150 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Munna Lal & Sons vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 12 November, 1963
In Munna Lal and Sons v. CIT , the Allahabad High Court held that a proceeding or remarks of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could not constitute information within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was not valid.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. vs Foramer France (Through Constituted ... on 16 January, 2003
9. Besides this, the learned Departmental Representative in order to combat the argument put forward by learned senior counsel on the point of change of opinion having been cited (CIT v. Foramer France stated above, forcefully argued that it does not amount to change of opinion as the assessment completed earlier was under Section 143(1)(a) and, therefore, in the absence of any scrutiny assessment, summary assessment under Section 143(1)(a) cannot give a clear-cut finding to the criteria of Section 68 (identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors). In this connection, he relied on a catena of decisions which are also quoted as under:
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Jai Pal Sharma vs Income-Tax Officer on 20 April, 1999
(iv) Pal Jain v. ITO --In this case it has been held that acquiring fresh information, specific in nature and reliable in character, relating to the concluded assessment which goes to expose the falsity of the statement made by the assessee at the time of the original assessment is different from drawing a fresh inference from the same facts and material which were available with the Income-tax Officer at the time of the original assessment proceedings. The two situations are distinct and different. Thus, where the transaction itself, on the basis of subsequent information, is found to be a bogus transaction, the mere disclosure of that transaction at the time of the original assessment proceedings cannot be said to be a disclosure of the "true" and "full" facts in the case and the Income-tax Officer would have the jurisdiction to reopen the concluded assessment in such a case.